The Critic Exposed

If Howard Rosenberg could objectively step out from his male skin he might witness his very own perpetuation of the female body’s subjugation, latent in cinematic/television worlds at large (“Men Exposed,” March 15).

When comparing the two HBO documentaries--nude persons of the same sex speaking openly before a camera about their bodies--the subject matter is the same, but the subject differs. I find it telling that censorship issues are neglected until a man is brought under the same scrutiny. Female nudity has become a virtual requisite on screen as an object to be consumed, while a man’s is invariably untrespassed. Only when this “male gaze” is inverted is the issue rendered foreign and contentious.

While Rosenberg attempts to qualify his discrimination by evaluating the “entertainment value” of each documentary, I remind him that the narrative is hardly the most salient feature (folks did not see “Showgirls” for the plot). It is no wonder that he was entertained by females’ nudity

and revolted by males’. The only male crudely exposed in this instance is Rosenberg.

JENNIFER L. BAXTON

Valencia

*

So Howard Rosenberg has concluded that the only purpose for a penis is sex? Perhaps the backup of urine in his case explains the occasionally acrid nature of his reviews.

DAVID R. GINSBURG

Santa Monica