Phallocentrism’s role in censoring full frontal male nudity in Hollywood
Here is a short research project I completed for my History of the Body class. Enjoy! And please add to it!
Phallocentrism’s role in censoring full frontal male nudity in Hollywood
How the Phallus Haunts the Penis
By David Titterington
Professor Christopher Forth
HWC 775 Body, Self, and Society
December 8, 2010
“In order to take narrative cinema’s powerfully ideal male body seriously, we must not see its literal truth.”[i]
I take Hollywood and its depiction of human bodies very seriously. Neo-feminist Camille Paglia (1992) says Hollywood is not only America's greatest contribution to world culture; it is a buisness, a religion, an art form, and a state of mind, one I have realized is engaged in a very strange relationship with the penis. Film theorist Peter Lehman (2001) points out that there are currently only three reasons Hollywood films can show the penis: as phallic spectacle, cruel joke, or melodramatic accent,[ii] and in this paper I would like to address three major reasons Hollywood films do not, and cannot, show the penis. In doing so, I hope to upset the “phallus-penis equation” upon which hegemonic masculinity and harmful phallocentrism are founded.[iii] This paper concludes that censoring the penis in film actually harms society and, conversely, “demystifying” the penis by exposing it in film greatly benefits society.
The United States has had more trouble with full frontal male nudity than any other western culture.[iv] Public television stations in America, for example, are fined $275,000 every time they show an “offensive” male nude.[v] American film distributers seem to censor the penis specifically. Sony Classics decided to cut all the scenes including Ewan McGregor's penis for the US release of Young Adam (2003), although his naked body remains in the UK version.[vi] The film Sliver (1993) was originally shot with a great deal of full-frontal nudity of actor Alec Baldwin, but none of those scenes survived the final cut.[vii] And while all viewers of Stanly Kubrick’s final film Eyes Wide Shut (1999) were permitted to gaze at a dozen or more full-frontal nude female characters, Americans were denied access to all the scenes of full frontal male nudity.[viii] In some cases clothed figures were even digitally inserted into the American version to obscure the nude male.[ix]
Why exactly is that small, fleshy organ so charged with significance it has become “the last great taboo in our culture”?[x] Hollywood is an overwhelmingly straight-male-dominated industry catering primarily to straight men, [xi] so the question can more specifically be, why are straight, American male spectators so uncomfortable looking at a penis?
Obviously, many of these cinematic decisions are influenced by censorship laws—the display of the penis can immediately push a film into an NC-17 rating category, thereby reducing its ticket sales.[xii] But that does not answer the question as to why male full frontal nudity is so taboo. We must look to the developmental, sociological, and psychological dimensions of the penis if we want a comprehensive answer.
During my research I found three irreducible issues surrounding men’s refusal to represent their penises in film: the male gaze, homophobia, and size anxiety, all of which relate to the phallus and phallocentric social “power relations.”[xiii] Therefore I will begin my argument there, with the concept of the phallus.
The phallus is traditionally a symbolic representation of the erect penis, however in theory it cannot be reduced to the penis because it is also a symbol for power and fertility.[xiv] Lacan notes that it can even signify ‘the flow of life.”[xv] The Indo-European roots of the word signify (according to the American Heritage Dictionary) “To blow, to swell: with derivative reference to various round objects and the notion of tumescent masculinity.”[xvi] Nevertheless, the term ‘phallus’ is very ambiguous, oscillating between its role as signifier and its role as a real (or imagined) penis.[xvii]A brief history of the rise of the phallus in the West is worth mentioning. As New York University’s Samual Slipp summarizes it (drawing from Joseph Campbell), around the time human civilization moved from horticultural modes of production into agrarian modes of production, the great mother goddess was supplanted with a male god, and phallic symbols (such as Stonehenge, tombstones, and totems) became more important than yonic symbols of the womb. Along with the establishment of magical powers associated with the phallus, there appeared an accompanying change in social organization. “Phallocentrism” gradually evolved, “and in time became the most common form of social organization throughout the world.” [xviii] Interestingly, it seems that as the phallus, aka “God’s Penis,”[xix] gained visibility in society, man’s penis lost it. Let us now take a quick look at the gradual fall of the penis.
To begin with, we know that penises were not “off-limits” in ancient Greece; seeing them in public was common, and even feeling them was considered a sign of friendliness. In some cases, it was rude not to![xx] Such relaxed manners quickly disappeared in Europe, however up into the 12th century Norbert Elias notes that it was relatively common to see men and women running naked in the streets to their local public bathhouses.[xxi] Due in part to the lack of medical knowledge pertaining to gender distinction, and different notions of public and private space, nudity lied outside western codes of decency. Doctors during this time were still using antiquity’s Galen orthodoxy to maintain a “single-sex” view of the two bodies, where women were simply cold, “underdeveloped” men, whose penises never dropped. The vagina was an “inside-out penis,” and both men and women produced semen. It was even believed that women had to have an orgasm in order to get pregnant.[xxii] (Feminist Luce Irigaray argues that Western social relations are still based on this single-sex view, which she marks “phallocentrism”.)[xxiii]
Susan Bordo tells a similar story. Up until the eighteenth century, there were not radically different “masculine” and “feminine” attitudes towards the body or its social display. Standards of elegance were largely the same for both sexes, since class privilege was more important than gender differences in distinguishing people.[xxiv] Also, as Foucault ably demonstrates in The History of Sexuality, modernity’s differentiation of the sexes is correlated with a newfound social obsession with sexuality.[xxv] Never, it seems, had so much attention been focused on every aspect of the body and its genitalia. As Dreyfus and Rabinow note, “sex became the object of a major investment of signification, of power, and of knowledge.”[xxvi]
Despite the fact that women were physically and psychologically closer to men than any other thing in the universe, during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries patriarchal power relations (aka phallocentrism) increased and caused women to be defined as the opposite of men. A "two-sex" model of the body finally formed, and "masculinity" become clearly defined as “not-femininity.”[xxvii] Both femininity and homosexuality became classified as cultural “problems” which the normal, “heterosexual” male had to continually prove himself distinct from.[xxviii]
“No phallus, no power.”[xxix]
Which brings us back to the phallus. The phallus, according to Lacan, is not the penis; It can signify the penis, but it can also signify power, vital life, or the ultimate “object” of desire.[xxx] The phallus is “imaginary,” whereas the penis is “real.” The imaginary penis can therefore become a phallus.[xxxi] Central to my argument is Lacan’s notion that the phallus plays its role only when veiled.[xxxii] He gives the example of classical paintings that invoke the phallus by curiously depicting men without penises but with flowers or drapery just barely covering that area anyway.[xxxiii] The absence of the penis in American media also allows for an imaginary penis, or phallus, to take its place. This is dangerous since the phallus-penis equation is the basis for hegemonic masculinity and phallocentrism.[xxxiv]
I am using Irigaray’s concept of phallocentism because it not only refers to the “overvaluation” of the penis, but also “the continuing submersion of women’s autonomy in norms, ideals, and models devised by men.” Mirroring the “single-sex” version of the body mentioned earlier, Irigaray notes also that “phallocentrism treats the two sexes as if they are two variations of the one sex...and, not surprisingly, positions women as man’s inferior, the ‘castrated sex’.”[xxxv] To repeat Peter Lehman’s argument, more public nudity will uncover that “all penises are inadequate to the phallus,” thus decentralizing phallic power in the male body and deconstructing the patriarchic, phallocentic social power relations that depend upon their equation.[xxxvi]
“The phallus not only haunts the penis, but the penis haunts phallic authority, threatens its undoing.”[xxxvii] Therefore, Susan Bordo argues “patriarchal culture generally wants the penis out of sight.”[xxxviii]
But not all Western “patriarchal” cultures hysterically avoid or regulate the spectacle of the penis. Lee Parpart, in her essay The Nation and the Nude, colonial masculinity and the spectacle of the male body in recent Canadian cinema, makes a compelling argument for looking at national identity types as a major factor in how male bodies are represented in film. She compares Canada’s ability to portray naked men in film to The United Sate’s inability, concluding that countries who are more invested in a phallocentric “colonial” identity will keep their men’s penises out of sight. On the other hand, Canada, Switzerland, France, Holland—nations that “are not heavily invested in empowered nationhood and dominant masculinity” have less of a problem representing their men’s genitalia in film.[xxxix] Gary Needman points out that full frontal male nudity is actually expected in French Cinema, which he says is a sign of their sexual maturity.[xl]
Sometimes Hollywood does show the penis, as I mentioned at the beginning of this paper, and Peter Lehman indicates three different ways that they do. Lee Parpart, however, laments that Hollywood may think they are ready to embrace “new scripts of masculinity” by exposing the penis in ways that “signal a distancing from patriarchal concepts of phallic power,” but often the penis turns out to be a safe, plastic, or barely visible substitute, “rather than an image carrying any kind of potentially de-phallicizing, indexical relation to a bodily real.”[xli]
The Male Gaze
The concept of “the gaze” is central to all film[xlii] and is deeply influenced by phallocentrism. Within feminism, “the gaze” often refers to how, in cinema, heterosexual men possess “the gaze” and women are its “object.”[xliii] This is one reason given for the disparity between female and male nudity in film. “The controlling gaze in Hollywood cinema is almost always male,”[xliv] and this “male gaze” is objectifying, voyeuristic, eroticizing, and is considered a straight-male privilege.[xlv] A Foucaultian analysis by Florance D. Bookadian concludes that veiling the penis from “the gaze” is directly connected to power relations in contemporary American culture.[xlvi] In order to keep their privileged position, the heterosexual man must keep his own body out of the “perific ring” of the female and homosexual male gaze. The naked female full frontal makes it to center stage, while “the overseer in the tower sits in his protective darkness.”[xlvii] This “overseer” can refer to a man in the story, or it can refer to the audience of the film. For example, In The Last Temptation of Christ (1988), Peter Lehman points out that repeated emphasis is placed on the naked male body being looked at by characters within the story, while the audience of the film is denied the view.[xlviii] One reason for this denial, Lehman argues, is to protect a man’s sense of masculinity. As Philip Culbersrtson puts it, “To gaze at another man re-positions a straight man as a gay man, thereby shattering his fragile masculinity.” It is only through protecting masculinity from homosexuality that a phallic political power (such as America) can assure its own authority into the future.[xlix] Charles Keil, associate professor of cinema studies at the University of Toronto, found that when male nudity is allowed to enter the gaze, it is often when the character is gay, bisexual, or in some other way non-threatening to the straight white man. “Once a character's sexuality is defined that way, it gives the filmmaker license to view him as more overtly sexualized, and perhaps as less obviously ‘masculine’, and therefore subject to a similar kind of visual logic applied to women.” Keil explains, “It's almost as though by being gay, a character has entered a zone distinct from heterosexual male characters and then he can be shown in ways that women typically are.” [l]
Despite the lack of clinical evidence for psychoanalysis,[li] contemporary film theory still heavily relies on Freud’s important work.[lii] According to Freud, all heterosexual men necessarily harbor a repressed homosexual (or "same-loving") component of their sexuality (but not all of them become paranoid as a result.)[liii] During the “phallic phase” all boys love their penis, and want to see others. [liv] Moreover, Freud maintained that the boy’s “love affair with his penis” actually motivates all discovery, all research, and all science.[lv] However the sight of another man’s penis can create a great deal of anxiety for homophobic men (who may become disturbed at finding themselves fascinated by it or deriving pleasure from looking at it). A study done at the University of Georgia found that homophobic men get aroused much more often than nonhomophobic men while looking at gay male porn.[lvi]
The irony is that hiding the penis helps eroticize it, because most people see the penis only in erotic contexts, such as during lovemaking or while watching pornography.[lvii] Interestingly, Florence Dee Boodakian found that, unlike the male nude, the female nude can never reach the level of ‘bareness’ that the nude male can, and is thus not fully eroticized.[lviii] Censoring the penis, in this way, not only perpetuates its eroticization, but is a confession that the penis, at least to the men concerned with its censorship, is indeed erotic.
Homophobia may be useful for phallocentric societies, but can be very dangerous for the physical well being of men and women. For example, Andrea Dworkin (1981) provides a compelling argument that male homophobia relates directly to hypermasculinity and its resulting sexual violence against women.[lix]
Maintaining imaginary phallic power through controlling the gaze and continuing homophobia are not the only reasons the penis is kept out of Hollywood film and the media; men can also simply be ashamed of their penis size (after all, the penis is extremely important in a man’s identity, so much so that he sometimes identifies with it exclusively).[lx] In an article a few years ago, political theorist Mark Kingwell rationalized: "Guys don't like to see penises in film because they are either too small (in travel mode) and therefore not worth all the fuss, or too big (in action mode) and so threatening to self-esteem."[lxi] Elias argues that every new level of civilization requires a new level of shame,[lxii] and not surprisingly, in our current “Information Age” of civilization, American men have the “lockeroom syndrome” where they “dissolve into panic about the size of their penis.”[lxiii] Americans are obsessed with penis size.[lxiv] (The amount of “penis-size jokes” can be a sign of our culture’s anxiety about penis size.)[lxv] “Men may fear that the representation of the penis gives women a basis for comparison and judgment and, although men have long engaged in such behavior toward women, the thought of the tables being turned on them is close to unbearable.”[lxvi]
Richard Dyer’s memorable words, “The penis isn’t a patch on the phallus,” reiterates how seeing the penis becomes a disappointment when the phallus is expected. Dyer concludes, “The limp penis can never match up to the mystique that has kept it hidden from view for the last couple of centuries.” [lxvii] The erect penis seems to fall even shorter to the mystique of the phallus than the flaccid one; it is even more heavily censored from American film. Amazon.com, for example, has a list of “mainstream movies” that show the male penis in both erect and flaccid states. The list is “intended for those people who claim there is not enough male nudity in mainstream movies,” and yet none of the movies mentioned in the list are mainstream movies. It begins with Ken Park (2002), which one must import from abroad because it is not distributed in the United States. The rest are all foreign and independent films.[lxviii]
In an attempt to be as comprehensive as possible, I outlined the developmental, psychological, and sociological dynamics underlying men’s complex relationship with their penises and their representation in film. Maintaining the gaze, homophobia, and anxiety about penis size all contribute to the penis being censored from Hollywood Cinema. Within this triple layer of fearfulness, (all three related to phallocentrism), the easiest thing to do is not show the penis.
I will now conclude by bringing our attention to that which really matters: the children. Numerous studies indicate that nudity at home actually benefits children,[lxix] and yet, due to its treatment in the family and the media, “virtually every American child over the age of five has already concluded that genitals are shameful and eroticism a clear ‘no-no’.”[lxx]
The media communicates a certain set of values, and young people often turn to the media for answers about issues associated with their bodies and sexuality.[lxxi] Though sexual imagery and behavior are common in the media, (as evidenced in soap operas, movies, reality tv-shows, magazines, and music videos), it almost never displays full-frontal nudity.[lxxii] (The media’s treatment of sexuality may seem more relaxed than ever, but rather than this being a sign of liberation, it is, as Elias says, simply a sign that the civilizing process which keeps nudity out of sight has been, on the whole, secured. “It is a relaxation within the framework of an already established standard.”)[lxxiii] Full nudity, in particular male genitalia, is still completely taboo.
The problem is that children don't see any genitals in their world, on television, in the news, or in movies, and this censorship confuses their own relationship with their bodies and others. Moreover, the genitals and bodies that they do see in their world are those who are secure in the knowledge that theirs conform to current western standards. The rest are kept covered or are blacked out with censorship dots.[lxxiv]
Scenes with penises in Hollywood films may be slowly emerging, but it is no surprise that the taboo of full frontal male nudity still lingers on considering the phallocentric politics and American hegemonic masculinity which it perpetuates and follows from.[lxxv]
It is said that analyzing pleasure or beauty destroys it.[lxxvi] That was the intention of this paper—to analyze, and therefore help destroy, phallocentrism and hegemonic masculinity. I found that the more penises are hidden from view, the more the symbolic phallus can take its place and function as a support for hegemonic masculinity and phallocentric power relations.
[i] Peter Lehmen, Running Scared masculinity and the representation of the male body (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 2007), 172.
[ii] See Peter Lehman, Masculinity: bodies, movies, culture (New York: Routledge, 2001). The penis can also be shown if it is "dead", which Lehman refers to as an aspect of the melodramatic penis.
[iii] See Luce Irigaray, Speculum of the other woman (New York: Cornell University Press, 1985). Phallocentrism here means namely male-centered, patriarchal power relations and decisions. Related to "logocentrism," this way of thinking and organizing society puts penis-carrying men's thinking above all others'.
[iv] Lee Parpart, in Peter Lehman, Masculinity: bodies, movies, culture, 186.
[v] Rick Steves , Travel as a Political Act (New York: Nation books, 2009), 76.
[vii] Gwendolyn Audrey, Captive Bodies: postcolonial subjectivity in cinema (New York: State University of New York, 1999), 115.
[viii] Peter Lehmen, Masculinity: bodies, movies, culture, 186.
[ix] Linda Williams, Screening Sex (Duke University Press, 2008), 283.
[x] Peter Lehman, Masculinity: bodies, movies, culture, 28.
[xi] Susan Bordo, The male body: a new look at men in public and in private (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux New, 1999), 191.
[xii] Nicola Rehling, Exra-ordinary men: white heterosexual masculinity in contemporary popular cinema (Lanham: Lexington Books, 2009), 96.
[xiii] See Michel Foucault, The Subject and Power in Hubert L. Dreyfus and Paul Rabinow, Michel Foucault, beyond structuralism and hermenutics (Chicago: The Univeristy of Chicago Press, 1983), pp 208~226.
[xiv] Zainab Bahrani, Women of Babyolon: gender and representation in Mesopotamia (New York: Routledge, 2001), 65.
[xv] Jane Gallop, Reading Lacan (London, Cornell University Press), 154.
[xvi] Maragaret Cohen, Specticles of realism: body, gender, genre (Regents of the University of Minnesota, 1995), 326.
[xvii] Jane Gallop, Reading Lacan, 143.
[xviii] Samuel Slipp M. D. Dethroning the Goddess and Phallocentrism, in The Freudian Mystique: Freud, Women, and Feminism (New York: New York University Press, 1993) pp. 37-45.
[xix] See Howard Eilberg-Schwartz, God’s Phallus: And Other Problems for Men and Monotheism (Boston: Beacon Press, 1994).
[xx] David M. Freidman, A Mind of It’s Own: A cultural history of the Penis (New York: The Free Press, 2001), 17.
[xxi] Norber Elias, The Civilizing Process, Blackwell Publishing, 2000. P. 139
[xxii] Thomas Walter Laqueur, Making sex: body and gender from the Greeks to Freud (Harvard University Press, 1992), 149.
[xxiii] Elizabeth A. Grosz, Jacques Lacan: a feminist introduction (London: Routledge, 1990), 174.
[xxiv] Susan Bordo, The Male Body, 201.
[xxv] Laura Epstein, Reading Foucault for Social Work (New York: Columbia University Press, 1999), 132.
[xxvi] Hubert L. Dreyfus, Paul Rabinow, Michel Foucault, beyond structuralism and hermeneutics (University of Chicago Press, 1983)
[xxvii] Gerald N. Izenberg, Modernism and masculinity: Mann, Wedekind, Kandinsky through World War I (University of Chicago Press, 2000), 7.
[xxviii] Susan Bordo, The Male Body, 203.
[xxix] Juliet Mitchel, Psycholanalysis and feminism: a radical reassessment of Freudian psychoanalysis (New York: Basic Books, 2000), 96.
[xxx] Mikkel Borch-Jacobsen, Lacan: the absolute master (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1991), 225.
[xxxi] Dylan Evans, An introductory dictionary of Lacanian psychoanalysis (New York: Routledge, 1996).
[xxxii] Jacques Lacan Ecrits p. 220, London Routledge 1989
[xxxiii] Steven Levine, Lacan Reframed (New York: I. B. Tauris and Co., 2008), 62.
[xxxiv] Jennifer Friedlander Feminine Look: Sexuation, Spectatorship, Subversion (New York: State University Press, 2008), 42.
[xxxv] Elizabeth A. Grosz, Jacques Lacan: a feminist introduction, 174.
[xxxvi] Peter Lehmann, Running Scared, masculinity and the representation of the male body, 10.
[xxxvii] Susan Bordo, The Male Body, 95.
[xxxviii] Susan Bordo, Reading the Male Body” in Laurence Goldstein, The Male Body: Features, Destinies, Exposures (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1997), vii.
[xxxix] See Lee Parpart, The Nation and the Nude: colonial masculinity and the specticle of the male body in recent canadian cinema in Peter Lehman, Masculinty: Bodies, Movies, Culture.
[xl] Gary Needman, Closer than Ever: Contemporary French Cinema and the Male Body in Close-up, published in Mysteriouse Skin, male bodies in contamprary cinema, edited by Santiago Fouz-Hernandez, (New York: I.B. Tauris, 2009), pp. 127-141.
[xli] Lee Parpart, in Masculnities: bodies, movies, culture, 187.
[xlii] See Todd McGowan, The Real Gaze: Film Theory After Lacan (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2007), for a look at how films can be grouped in terms of their approach to the gaze.
[xliii] Shohini Chaudhuri, Feminist film theorists: Laura Mulvey, Kaja Silverman, Teresa de Lauretis (New York: Routledge, 2006), 31.
[xliv] Shohini Chaudhuri, Feminist film theorists: Laura Mulvey, Kaja Silverman, Teresa de Lauretis, 31.
[xlv] Mira Schor, Wet: on painting, feminism, and art culture (Duke University Press, 2000), 213.
[xlvi] Florence Dee Boodakian, Resisting nudities: a study in the aesthetics of eroticism (New York: Peter Lang Publishing, 2008), 18.
[xlvii] Florence Dee Boodakian, Resisting nudities: a study in the aesthetics of eroticism, 20.
[xlviii] Peter Lehmen, Running Scared: Masculinity and the representation of the male body, 123.
[xlix] Marianne Walters, Betty Carter, Peggy Papp, and Olga Silverstein, The Invisible Web: Gender Patterns in Family Relationships (New York: Guilford, 1988), 215.
[l] From You've got male, found on www.canada.com Canwest News Service, January 8, 2006
[li] Colby and Stoller, Cognitive science and psychoanalysis, L. Erlbaum Associates, 1988
[lii] David Bordwell, Noël Carroll, Post-theory: reconstructing film studies (Univeristy of Wisconsin Press, 1996), 74.
[liii] Victor Burgin, In/Different Spaces (London: University of California Press, 1996), 127.
[liv] Sigmund Feud, “The Infantile Genital Organization” in Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmond Freud, ed. And trans. James Strachey (London: Hogarth Press, 1923)
[lv] Vernon Rosario, in Body Parts: Critical Explorations in Corporreality, Cristifor E. Forth and Ivan Crozier, ed. (Lenham, Lexington books, 2005), 181.
[lvi] H. Adams, Write, & Lohr, Is homophobia associated with homosexual arousal? In Journal of Abnorma Psychlogy, Vol. 105. No. 3. (American Psychological Association, 1996), pp. 440-445.
[lvii] John Ince, The Politics of Lust (Prometheus Books, 2005), 51.
[lviii] Florence Dee Boodakian, Resisting nudities: a study in the aesthetics of eroticism, 25.
[lix] Luoluo Hong, Redifining Babes, Booze and Brawls: men against violence (USA: Dissertations.com, 1999),
[lx] Simon J. Bronner Manly traditions: the folk roots of American masculinities (Indiana University Press, 2005), 219.
[lxi] You've Got Male, By Canwewst News Service, http://www.canada.com/topics/entertainment/story.html?id=78241218-b5de-4ef3-a9a9-f6571255883e
[lxii] Norbert Elias, The Civilizing Process, 2000 Norbert Elias Stiching, p. 114
[lxiii] Kathy Davis, Dubious equalities and empbied differences: cultural studies on cosmetic surgery (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2003), 118.
[lxiv] Vernon Rosario, Phallic Performance: Phalloplasty and the Techniques of Sex, in Body parts: critical explorations in corporeality, Christopher E. Forth, Ivan Crozier, ed. (Lanham, Lexington Books, 2005), 184.
[lxv] Andrew Horton, Comedy/cinema/theory (University of California Press, 1991), pp. 43-57.
[lxvi] Peter Lehman, Runing Scared, 236.
[lxvii] Richard Dyer, Only Entertainment (New York: Routledge, 2002), 136.
[lxviii] For the list, see www.amazon.com/movies-with-penises/lm/RA20M4FUJDPY5
[lxix] Charley M. Johnston and Robert W. Deisher, "Contemporary Communal Child Rearing: A First Analysis," Pediatrics 52, no. 3, Sept. 1973), pp. 323-326.
[lxx] Alayne Yates, in Jean-Marc Samson, Childhood and Sexuality: Procedings of the International Symposium (Montreal, Editions Etudes, 1980), 368.
[lxxi] Dick Thornburgh, Herbert Lin, National Research Council (U.S.) Youth, pornography and the Internet (National Academy Press, Washington D.C. in association with the Natinoal Acadamy of Medicine, National Acadamy of Sciences, and National Acadamy of Engeneering, 2002), 125.
[lxxii] Dick Thornburgh, Herbert Lin, National Research Council (U.S.)Youth, pornography and the Internet, 122.
[lxxiii] Norbert Elias, The Civilizing Process, 119.
[lxxiv] Julia Robinson, Body Packaging, A Guild to Human Sexual Display (Sydney: Watermark Press, 1988), 172.
[lxxv] Florance Dee Boodakian, Resisting Nudities, 20.
[lxxvi] Lara Mulvey, Visual Pleasure and narrative Ciname, in Feminism and Film theory, Constance Penley, ed. (New York: Routledge, 1988), 59.