Removed

This film did not disturb me as much as I thought it would. I think generally I was relieved that the female bodies were removed but I had mixed feeling of them. Because it was taken from a pornographic film, obviously I did not enjoy nudity. I would not enjoy how my body, resembling theirs, is used in this context for male sexual gratification. I am not implying that females are not spectators of pornographic imagery but they are generally made with male pleasure in mind. Looking back at Mulvey’s piece we read in class, pornography are those films who more explicitly make use of the female form and exploit for object of the male gaze.

It could be argued of course that these women have more agencies because they are getting paid to perform sexual acts in from of a camera, but it is the same with conventional Hollywood films as well. The reason “Removed” was refreshing was because of the lack of nudity of course, and because I saw it within feminist contexts. The removal of the female body draws even more attention to it in spite of it not being present. Her power in drawing focus is greater compared to the lesser roles the male characters play in the films.

However, in spite of this point of view, I see pornographic films very negatively in portraying the female body. It completely surrounds the notion that the female body is an exhibition of sexuality, when the male figure can be eroticized and emphasized just as well.