“If you
are large keep yourself covered up.”
“God
forbid, if you are big don’t show any skin.”
“Elle, how
dear you?”
“Can’t big
girls be sexy?”
“Too
little skin”
“Is
Melissa McCarthy Elle’s cover shameful?”
These
are just a few of the statements/comments/questions I read or listened to in
response to one of the recent covers of Elle magazine.
Melissa
McCarthy’s cover is part of the Women in Hollywood series. Other women gracing
the alternate covers include: Marion Cotillard,
Shailene Woodley, Naomie Harris, and Reese Witherspoon. These women, such as
Witherspoon, were captured in what some considered more revealing/sexy outfits.
In other words, “there was more skin on display.”
![]() |
McCarthy |
How did we get to the point where sexiness seems to be defined
by the level of nakedness we display? No I’m not being a prude. But I think
that as we interrogate the cover we have to ask a series of questions to better
understand our consumption of sexy. I don’t deny that Elle seems to be covering
women with bodies over a certain size. There is a clear historical pattern.
Elle did the same thing with the Adele and Gabourey Sidibe’s covers.
Elle
is not shy about perpetuating white codes of dress and desirability. Their
construction of women’s sexuality is both historical and social. The question
that I continue to ponder in the midst of this discussion is how do we as a
society consume the performance of sexuality?
![]() |
Adele |
The
performance of sexuality has a long history in society in terms of delineating
identity. The performance of sexuality, and how it is consumed, is part of our
understandings of morality and social order. Consequently, the performance of
sexuality becomes something to be policed and monitored. Part of this process
involves the gaze. This has given way to the notion that some of us are sexy
and as such should be viewed while those not deemed sexy should be covered up.
What
fascinates me about this process is how as a society sexiness comes to be
measured by the amount of skin that’s revealed. Why can’t we consider “being
covered up” as sexy? Yet, if some individuals go to far and reveal too much skin
they are considered “sluts”. So what is sexy and who determines what sexy looks
like?
This
brings me to Foucault and his concept of the “disciplinary society”. Discipline,
as a mechanism of power, is used to regulate individual and collective
behaviors. Regulation takes place in multiple forms and places—such as via
architecture and our activities—including how we move and interact with each
other. Discipline requires surveillance—the gaze, in part.
These
magazine covers, and their content, are part of the cultural texts that
simultaneously promote and perpetuate capitalism while defining the contours of
femininity and its related understandings of sexiness. So Elle in choosing
whose skin is sexy and therefore should be gazed at reveals the underlying
mechanism of a very powerful system that does not require the disciplinarian,
as we are all involved in the disciplining of the female body. Elle is part of
the discipline—it is part of the mechanism of power that enforces and
reinforces our understandings of what sexy means and who can be sexy. We, as a
society contribute to this capitalist understanding by consuming these images
often with little thought.
![]() |
Gabourey Sidibe |
Consequently,
I think that we need to pose a different set of questions, or maybe an
additional set of questions, in response to the Elle cover. Instead of asking why isn’t McCarthy as
scantily clad as the other women, we should ask, why must women bear skin in
order to be considered sexy? While there are many more questions to be
asked, this one seems key to me.
This is the tenth post of my 31-day blogging challenge. You can tweet me at Dr_JZ using hash tag #31dbc to share your thoughts and share your stories.
This is the tenth post of my 31-day blogging challenge. You can tweet me at Dr_JZ using hash tag #31dbc to share your thoughts and share your stories.
No comments:
Post a Comment