|
Tuesday, May 20, 2003
When your job is to write about sexuality's interaction with everything, it's not surprising to see sexuality ascribed to, well, everything. Richard Goldstein's latest tackles the issue of whether Bush's handlers tried to make him look hung in that flight suit. He says of the costume:Discretion prevented anyone from mentioning that Bush's outfit gave him a very vivid basket. This was the first a time a president literally showed his balls. Check it out—your subconscious already has. I can actually say with reasonable confidence that most of the shots I saw were at least waist-up...I recall seeing one of him turning sideways to shake someone's hand that was a full-length shot, but his member would've been disguised by his legs in that position. I might have seen one shot showing the package, but then my mind just might be conjuring that image after reading Goldstein here.This manly exhibition was no accident. The media team that timed Bush's appearance to catch just the right tone of sunlight must have chosen that uniform and had him try it on. can't prove they gave him a sock job, but clearly they thought long and hard about the crotch shot. As students of the cinematic, they would know that the trick is to make the bulge seem natural, so it registers without raising an issue. Tight jeans (a staple of Bush's dress-down attire) can achieve this look, but nothing works like fighter-pilot drag, with its straps that frame and shape the groin. Most people presume this effect is merely functional. That frees the imagination to work, and work it does, in men and women alike. While it's true that a lot of what went into making this image wasn't necessary, some parts of it would've had to have been. Does the flight suit come without the accentuating accessory? I'd imagine the harness is necessary -- he'd have been wearing some sort of parachute for that flight, right? Either way, having worn a harness and seen men and women in them, I don't think I'm stating anything other than the obvious when I say it's overall an unflattering look -- it makes you walk funny, hunch over, and...well, it looks like you're wearing underwear as overwear; it just looks stupid. I'd think if he had the choice, he'd go against it.
Regardless, throughout the article Goldstein emphasizes the theme that Bushies are artificially manipulating the President's crotch. I find it shocking that he never seems to ask: could the President just have a lot where it counts? There's some investigative reporting you'd like to see a sex columnist do.
Steven I. Weiss 1:58:00 PM
|