"Oh my goodness..." I squeak. "He's quite something."
"Isn't he just?" whispers the woman next to me out of the corner of her mouth.
"And surprisingly hirsute, if I might say...crikey, just look at that six-pack. And chest. And tummy...Wow! Who'd have thought it?"
. . . .
The reason most people are here tonight and, indeed, the reason tickets are sold out for weeks to come, is the moment, halfway through the second half, when Harry (sorry, Daniel) simulates sex with an attractive blonde stable girl called Jill, played by 24-year-old Joanna Christie.
. . . .
"Oh my God!" whispers a man in front to his wife. "We're not - I repeat - not, bringing the girls." "Shut up!" hisses his wife. "I'm trying to watch."
So are we all. And we're all wondering the same thing. Fast forward past the applause and standing ovation to the aftershow party, and the million-dollar question is on everyone's lips.
Were actress Joanna Christie's charms too much to resist for poor Daniel? Had his body reacted in the way any 17-year-old boy's would when confronted with an attractive naked girl?
From our perch in the gods, we suspected as much, but it was important to check with those who had a better view. Graham Norton was uncharacteristically prurient. "I couldn't possibly comment. And you should be ashamed of yourself, young lady. He's little more than a boy."
Others were less equivocal, but one thing is for certain: those little round specs are a distant memory.
Link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-439289/Harry-Potter-curse-screaming-groupies.html#ixzz1HbxpYuHj
Posts
7 comments:
A vain and insecure young man desperate to ensure that his future is not blighted by typecasting, perhaps subject to pressures from women who might be thought old enough to know better, pressured, perhaps, into being an object of desire for and by those same women?
Could those women be members of a misandrist paedophile sex ring?
Where vulnerable boys and youths are concerned I think the risk that they might be the object of predatory gyno-erotic viragoes should not be overlooked.
We allow them to present their voyeurism as respectable while ours is disreputable.
It's our fault, not theirs, as they are never responsible. Remember that and never forget that whatever they do they are never responsible, you are.
Any sort of double standard with respect to voyeurism is of course silly, and that seems to be the author's main point, but I seem to detect a whiff of intolerance for voyeurism rather than an acceptance of it when practiced by either gender. I'm speaking, of course, not of drilling secret holes into girls' bathrooms, but simply taking delight in the nude human form, something I consider natural and healthy.
JdL: I agree that is natural and healthy.
But the term 'voyeurism' has certain connotations that go beyond that.
I think there is a groundbreaking conversation going on on rape over at Roissy in DC http://roissy.wordpress.com/2011/03/28/more-women-have-rape-fantasies-than-previously-thought/
The psych study they discuss offers up another explanation for why a young woman would falsely cry rape. Here are a few good comments that break down the study:
"A fantasy is not often to be taken literally. A woman who has this in her mind might falsely accused her perpertrator due to regret. If one finds himself in such a situation where he is clearly in her fantasy world, he must excuse himself."
"First, there are consequences to intercourse, especially for women. So women have evolved to act as gatekeepers. If someone breaks that gate it can ignite natural arousal, but then she comes back to reality.
Second, because society would be tossed into savage turmoil without constraints, decent men have developed rules for winning a mate. The opposite of rape for a man is seduction. If a man can try to force a woman into submission and have his way, a woman can try to submit to a man, and get him.
This is why women rage against the woman who takes her man away by flaunting and flirting – - and why men rage against a man who dominates his girl. It’s breaking the rules.
So, what’s really happening here is a carefully balanced see-saw. Women try to put themselves in positions where they can be raped, and men try to get positioned for the raping. —-only then it’s not rape is it?
So what is real rape? The answer for women: street rape or stranger attack, and for men it’s the false rape claim.
The element of stranger street rape (real rape) needs to be addressed. It is horrifying, and society needs to go back to separating these into categories. Further, the element of male rape by women (that is, false rape allegations) needs to be addressed because that is just as horrifying and destructive. The perpetrators of these two crimes should face dire penalties."
I don't agree with many of the comments, but a lot of these game people seem to have picked up on a facet of what might lead to an FRA.
My concern is that the column seems to smack a bit of the "You suck too" defense. Men are accused of being voyeurs; well, women are ALSO voyeurs; witness the spectacle of audience members hooting as Daniel Radcliffe romped about the stage nude.
My own reaction to the Radcliffe article is, "You go, girls!" YES of course men should be just as free to celebrate female nudity, but why not stress that rather than implying that women who enjoy male nudity are not "respectable"?
Julie Andrews did the same thing for the same reasons after "Mary Poppins".
Post a Comment