Seriously sexist Servetus

Time for some OA.

I really like this thing that Porter wears on his right thigh.

Promotional photo from Strike Back, series 1. Source: RichardArmitageNet.com

I guess it’s some kind of holster, but I can’t figure out what’s in there. So I started to try to find some other angles on the thing. These are all my caps, produced in process of trying to get a closer look. Cough.

John Porter (Richard Armitage) buries the tsotsis in Strike Back 1.4. My caps.

Yeah, still don’t know what that thing on his thigh is, but I’m increasingly inclined to conclude that its major function is simply to call visual attention to his thigh. And other parts of his body.

Porter in motion. Richard Armitage, graceful as ever.

I’m embarrassed about this. Then, again, after viewing this video produced by a Rickman fan, I don’t feel quite so bad.

***

Happy Birthday month Richard Armitage! In honor of this event, consider donating your time, energy, and thoughts / prayers to an effort thatโ€™s meaningful to you. If you need a suggestion, hereโ€™s a link to Mr. Armitageโ€™s recommended charities at JustGiving, as well as a link to means of generating a charity contribution on his behalf at RichardArmitageOnline.com, and a link to Act!onAid, a child sponsorship organization for which he recorded a voiceover in December 2010. Donate to Christchurch Earthquake Appeal here.

~ by Servetus on August 18, 2011.

72 Responses to “Seriously sexist Servetus”

  1. It’s a sidearm holster. ๐Ÿ™‚ It’s strapped to the leg so that it doesn’t flop around a lot.

    You’ll see it in most military movies. The first time I really ever noticed one was in The Rock, being worn by Ed Harris. They look very cool.

    Like

    • Thanks, Dark. I guess I could have figured that out if I had tried harder. You can kind of see it in the photo, on the right side of his leg.

      Like

  2. Yep, it’s a holster and it looks totally cool–I think Benny has one of those somewhere, actually. Hmmm . . . maybe we need to do a little improv . . .

    He’s still got his BDUs. ๐Ÿ˜‰

    I think Richard looked great in all his military gear, from the dress uni to the camou and khaki. *thud*

    Like

  3. There is a better look at this from the side on a UK army blog:

    http://www.blogs.mod.uk/afghanistan/2009/01/us-praises-british-troops-kit.html

    I looked at some news photos of US and UK soldiers and not all of them were wearing the holster on their thigh. You would like to believe that the ones who do are not doing it to call attention to their thigh, though.

    And the Rickman fanvid was absolutely hysterical. Thanks for the link.

    Like

    • yes, I’m sure real soldiers have a real reason for wearing them ๐Ÿ™‚

      glad you liked the Rickman vid. It’s so bad it’s good.

      Like

  4. JP is seriously sexy.

    Like

  5. Yes, JP is seriously sexy. Not my favourite Armitage character, but it’s difficult maintaining proper objectivity when he happens to be around…:D

    Like

    • Sort of like the people who don’t like Guy and/or Lucas as characters, but shamelessly ogle them. ๐Ÿ˜‰ There is a lot to appreciate about all those characters . . . *sigh* of course, I like them ALL.

      Like

  6. I will say it’s fascinating how many more hits Porter generates than Thornton when each is the topic of the day ๐Ÿ™‚

    Like

  7. Just watched that video, Serv, and I think you have nothing to feel (guilty, embarrassed?) about. That blatant crotch shot was a little over the top.

    Like

  8. I was wondering after watching that Rickman vid: what made me feel so disgusted by it? Why is it different to ogle a man’s rear than his package?

    Applying the “we are disturbed by others’ expressions of fandom that we might want to do ourselves” theory, that means I subconsciously want to look at Mr. Armitage’s package. But you know, that desire is not subconscious. It’s right there on the table. I want to look at it in pictures, I do look at it in pictures, I talk about it with other people in chatrooms occasionally. So what’s the difference between admitting that I’m interested in the package (and so are other people) and putting it on display in a fanvid?

    I’m seriously interested in the answers to these questions if anyone knows them.

    Like

    • Frankly, if it were RA in that vid, in that particular shot, I would probably also find it over the top. Same if it were any woman’s crotch shot in that same way. It just seems to me to show a lack of respect for the person, to call such attention to one particular area of their anatomy.

      That said, if RA chose to do full frontal nudity I certainly wouldn’t be against ogling. Because he CHOSE to put himself on display that way. To me there is a difference between making a conscious choice and having someone else choose to put you on display in that manner.

      Serv, you (and I) look at his package privately, we talk about it privately, or as privately as a chatroom can be. But I believe that you always, first and foremost, consider respect for RA before you post anything. To me, that shot in the fanvid did not show much respect for Mr. Rickman and it made me feel embarrassed for him.

      Like

      • I do try to be respectful. But my idea of that might be different than his; and it’s certainly different than that of many other fans.

        Like

  9. I have to say I have never entertained the idea of doing just a crotch shot video of RA . . . and I still don’t plan to. ๐Ÿ˜‰ I do like to throw in certain stills where his “package” is somewhat prominent (for example, that smirking Guy shot on the steps from S2 is a fav) but then I also love spotlighting the adam’s apple, the swan-like neck, the eyes, the lips and the wonderful expressiveness of his face and hands, the broad shoulders, the elfin ears, the chesticles . . . et al. I think the zooming in on the crotch like that IS a bit much. It’s crossing the line for me.

    Maybe we all have our own particular set of boundaries we don’t wish to cross over and close-ups of (covered) genitalia versus butts or chests (bare or not) is just too OTT?

    I am often naughty and cheeky in my vids (as you know), but I try not to actually be raunchy or tasteless.

    Like

    • yeah, so my question is why butts are beautiful and packages are tasteless?

      Like

      • We are accustomed to seeing bare backsides nowadays in films, but full frontal male nudity is not as common. Is it because men are sometimes judged perfomance or manliness-wise by the size of their package (whereas a nice posterior is simply a nice posterior) . . . and it’s all out there unlike a woman’s anatomy . . . so it becomes “too much” for us? Hmmmmmm . . .

        Like

        • that’s a good point. I wonder how much of my reaction to the Rickman vid has to do with my perception that Rickman seems to have a perfectly ordinary package, so I think, “why are they focusing on this?” If it were gargantuan (or Llliputian), then I think my reaction might have been different. Big genitals say: manly, powerful; small genitals say: humor. Maybe I don’t want my perception of Armitage’s masculinity to be affected by this kind of information and/or am bothered by the possibility that other people might make such evaluations?

          Like

  10. Respect is treating another person the same way you would want to be treated yourself. That video is disgusting and disrespectful, very different from comparatively innocent OA we do here.

    Like

    • I think what also bothers me is so many candid shots of him versus screencaps or promo stills for roles–with the zooming crotch shots it seems like an invasion of his privacy. It’s one thing if you are playing a sexy role (clothed or unclothed–thinking of Gisborne and those intensely smouldering looks) and another if you’re just walking down the street or coming out of a restaurant, etc. as yourself.

      Like

      • I wonder, and I have to think about this more, if it has something to do with the fact that we’re women and certain kinds of glances at the male form are considered more acceptable than others. I agree, the point of a picture of someone walking down the street is not to show off their genitals, so the decision to look there specifically instead of elsewhere is a prurient or lascivious one. But are lascivious glances more illegitimate than innocent ones? Or where’s the line?

        Like

    • according to that definition, fabi, this whole blog is probably a poster child for the definition of “disrespectful”

      Like

      • One could also argue that if the man doesn’t want us to notice certain parts of his anatomy, he should wear very different trousers. Or maybe wander around in a male burka. ๐Ÿ˜‰
        He has to wear what the costumers give him on set, of course, but not in real life. We have discussed before the difficulty of fitting his particular build, and that is one reason but his backside and his package tend to be prominent in those jeans he so often wears.

        As to where the line is–oh, I don’t know. I am sure, however, Mr. A would be rather astonished at the intense discussions regarding portions of his anatomy. ๐Ÿ˜€

        Like

        • yeah, but isn’t that a bit like saying if you don’t want to get raped you shouldn’t wear such revealing clothing? I mean only that it’s a kind of “he’s asking for it” argument that we probably wouldn’t completely accept in reverse.

          on the other hand, I also don’t think that any one person gets (either in principle, or in actuality) to control the discourse about themselves. It has to be legitimate to have conversations about someone that the someone might not approve of if he knew of them, even in public settings.

          I don’t know where the line is either but I keep hoping that by continuing to talk about it we’ll figure it out ๐Ÿ™‚

          Like

          • I would never equate how anyone dresses, male or female, with them asking to be raped. Rape is about violence and control and not sex, anyway, right?

            However, as an example, the girl who works for the other newspaper sometimes shows up at events with her knockers practically leaping out of her dress at you. Sort of hard for anyone NOT to notice and I am sure guys have thoughts, because, well–they are guys. And I am not saying she is ‘asking for it” but surely she knows–she is a very intelligent young woman, and I should know, she is a former student of mine–that dressing a certain way attracts more attention, and possibly not the kind you want.

            And I agree, no one can really control how others perceive and/pr discuss them.
            And the discussion is most stimulating! ๐Ÿ˜€

            Like

            • OK, but aren’t you still saying, they know what’s going to happen if they dress this way, so they deserve what happens? Even if it’s attention and not rape? She could reasonably expect to get a certain reaction to certain clothing, so she must expect that reaction? It still seems to me like attributing a kind of responsibility to the dresser than primarily lies in the realm of what the observer is doing. (Don’t get me wrong — I was raised to believe women should be modest at all times and I tell female students all the time that they should think about what they wear, as a practical matter — but I also don’t think that they can really control what the watchers are doing with what they see). If you follow that argument to its logical consequence, it would suggest that actors should never be photographed at all, doesn’t it?

              I’m not sure, frankly, that how Armitage dresses would make all that much difference to how much ogling he was exposed to any more (unless, maybe, he regularly dressed like John Standring in episode 1). The standard for men in casual clothes these days is jeans, jeans show off certain parts of the male body, it’s hard to see how an average guy can avoid wearing jeans. But if people want to ogle, they will probably ogle anyway. If he wore kilts, people would ogle his thighs and shins; if he wore a burka, people would ogle his eyes (presumably).

              Like

              • I think my problem with this young lady is she is representing a newspaper and she just doesn’t look professional many times. And it’s not just the major boobage–it’s excessively casual clothes, too.

                Don’t get me wrong, I wore jeans twice this week, but not holey ones with nasty old sneakers and a faded top. That’s actually what I have the bigger issue with–dressing inappropriately for her position. This other newspaper is horribly unprofessional to begin with, and neither of their reporters improve that image in the way they present themselves to the public.

                People do judge us by our appearance. We react to the outer shell. We just DO. I’m not MIss America, but i have been told by various people I represent the paper and the community well. Doesn’t hurt that I can also write. ๐Ÿ˜‰

                No, you can’t control how people perceive you. I’ve known some really lovely people with extensive tattoos. But I find all that ink personally repellent (except with Lucas North). My personal prejudice doesn’t mean they shouldn’t get tatted up–although I think it can limit a person’s viability with certain employers . . . it’s their bodies and their business.

                And frankly, Mr. A would exude sex appeal in a giant crocker sack, so it’s all academic, I reckon. He can wear whatever he wants.

                Like

  11. good grief. some of us want to “LOOK at his package???” This is the first time I have encountered the term package when it refers to male sex organs. I really am disgusted. Although I have seen a male “package” and realize men have to put up with all that jiggly stuff, I am a romantic and other parts of men (smiles, eye contact, intelligence, etc) are what interests me more than the procreation software.

    Like

    • Sorry, Mary Lou. I’ve never liked the sound of the word “groin,” “loins” sounds to me like a product in a butcher shop, and “genitalia” a bit too clinical. My undergrads use the word “package” and I’ve always found that amusing.

      Like

      • I don’t like using clinical terms in my love scenes because it makes it sound like a sex manual. I have no problem with “package.”

        Like

  12. John Porter is undoubtedly one of my favorite characters. About your question I think is a balance between respect and responsibility. Respect yourself, because you cannot deny that there are desires, thoughts and express the desire not should be wrong. But how to express it? There are different ways and situations. Respect for the artist because his work is within a context. In another context, the artist would have been exposed in that way? Responsibility because we are responsible for our actions. And yet we must be more accountable when our actions involve other people. It is not because we like an artist, we can submit it to all our whims. Should always be careful with the human being behind his art. And the other admirers of the artist, as my actions reflect the group, as my individual actions reflect the way the artist perceives the group? Of course an artist doesnโ€™t know what I do, but my conscience knows. Intuition tells me something too. In geral, I think these are a good thermometer.

    Like

    • I imagine that Richard Armitage would prefer never to be ogled from behind (embarrassing) and that, given statements he’s made to the press, he’s not so thrilled about the topless photos of him, either. Is it my obligation to follow his rules for perceiving him?

      Like

      • I think that our only obligation is to be happy!

        Like

        • But even that does not absolve us of our responsibilities. ;0)

          Like

          • I was wondering about the extent to which you’d defend the obligation to be happy over the obligation toward others, specifically not to harm them. Actually, I don’t think ogling harms him, although he may not like it. It’s not like I’m staring at his actual body — only pictures of him.

            Like

            • Thank you, Servet, for listening to me, but I must follow my own advice and respect their space. Do not inundate you with my ideas and thoughts. If I caused you some discomfort, I apologize. Just to clarify, I do not think its embarrassing or offensive images for to the group, or for Mr. Armitage. And I think he has a great sense of humor to deal with things that happen in our small community. If you want to continue this conversation, I’m available. I like to hear your ideas! They cause me a deep thought about my behavior, and I am grateful for that!

              Like

              • you’re not inundating, you’re discussing ๐Ÿ™‚

                I have a tendency to think about arguments as abstract entities, and not pay so much attention to the possible hurt feelings of the people who espouse them — a big personal failing of mine.

                Like

      • From what I have read about Richard Armitage in RL I honestly can’t see him dressing to enhance any part of his anatomy or to please others but rather what he likes to wear himself (other than for a role he is portraying) and what he feels comfortable in, hence the often worn jeans and blue or black shirts and leather jackets. Have to admit I like him in tee-shirts and that fairly close-fitting blue sweater he wore in Spooks! Sorry for the last shallow personal comment – just stating my preference! ๐Ÿ™‚

        Like

  13. Sorry…”as my actions reflect in the group”.

    Like

  14. Ana Cris – sound advice. Let your conscious be your guide.

    Like

    • That’s my rule, too (combined with “don’t enforce your conscience on others”) but as soon as someone else is involved, as Ana Cris’s comment points out, it gets trickier.

      Like

  15. That “fan?” vid was seriously distasteful and disrespectful. And voyeuristic. No context for anything there. As an antidote, watch one of the accompanying vids – specifically the truly funny interview with Conan O’Brien.

    Conscience, intuition, as you said, Ana Cris. Personal ethics – which will vary, no point in being judgemental. We just have to go by our own internal compass, and choose our own paths.

    Like

    • Rickman gives a great interview — really reveals that there’s an intellect and a humor behind the roles he plays.

      Like

  16. @servetus, rightly or wrongly, I suspect you put up that vid to stimulate just this sort of fan discussion?

    Like

    • yeah. My MO when I have a strong reaction to something is not to assume that my reaction is inherently legitimate, but to ask, “why I am reacting to this so vehemently?” I had a vehemently negative reaction to the vid in question and I was wondering, assuming the reaction was shared, if others could help me understand why.

      Like

      • I think we all have our own boundaries. Some of what I write obviously isn’t for everyone’s tastes, and I have no problem with it. Some of what others write is too outre for me, and that is not a condemnation of them, it’s just my perspective. Obviously, this vid oversteps boundaries for quite a few people. Why? I think it’s a combination of factors. “nice” girls aren’t supposed to ogle men’s equipment; we feel a tad pervy, perhaps when we do (although men check out women all the time) . . . It is a really interesting question, S.

        Like

        • I was postulating that essentially we have to be taught to like or dislike certain kinds of images. H*stler and that kind of p*rn legitimated the ogling of the female genitalia for a slightly more mainstream audience; Playgirl made it “ok” for women to ogle the male genitalia. Or did it? In any case, we become more accustomed to the thought of doing so?

          Like

  17. Need to clarify that.. The Rickman vid was not yours, but it does put some issues in the spotlight.

    Like

  18. I don’t know. I was gigling like a school girl. I think it is mean’t to be cheeky. No? Go Alan. Never realized that he was packin that much heat. You go with your bad self!!!

    As for JP, he has a fine ass. And if I offend, well, I am sorry. Because it should be in a museum somewhere.

    Like

    • I assume that’s what the vid creators would say if we could ask them.

      Do we take our Armitage admiration too seriously?

      Like

      • Not judging by some of my vids. Thinking of Peacock, specifically. I warn people I don’t take myself seriously so they shouldn’t either. ๐Ÿ˜‰

        Like

  19. @Rob, a very fine posterior, indeed. ๐Ÿ˜€

    OK, trying to “lighten up”. ๐Ÿ™‚

    Like

    • I don’t know. “Lighten up” can cover up some fairly troubling things. @Rob certainly didn’t mean that (and this isn’t something along the lines of racism, I think), but I think any / all reactions to this vid are legit.

      Like

  20. Yes, a vid of crotch shots — how does one react to that? Seriously. Altho, men fan site prob post a lot worse. It is interesting how men and women react so differently to this stuff. Isn’t it? Did not mean to cause offense. This vid just struck me as a bit obsurd.

    Like

  21. And YES, we prob do take our Armitage admiration to seriously, but I liken that to “the armitage effect (or is it affect – got those confused)” the man makes grown women do crazy things. Could blame it on pheromones, but since we’ve never met … how can I? Maybe with those elfin ears, he’s an alien and he has an mind control thing happening.

    Like

  22. He affects our affect?

    Like

  23. Infects our affect?

    Like

  24. Yes, taking serious issues lightly can be deleterious. A little light and discussion is no bad thing. Rob isn’t offensive. We have our personal approaches to “fandom”, and discussion is enlightening…

    Like

    • My motto is take my job, my relationships, my beliefs, and so forth seriously–but NOT myself. That way I always have something to laugh about. ๐Ÿ˜€

      Like

  25. @Angie I received my JE DVD today. Did you? BTW the deleted scenes really would have made it a better movie.

    Like

  26. I have it and I am going to watch it this weekend. I had to work late last night. We can compare notes. ๐Ÿ˜€

    Like

  27. I hope they release a director’s cut with the deleted scenes. @ Sev I wonder if you would’ve enjoyed the movie more with them.

    Like

    • I think I never got around to blogging about it, but I went to see JE again and realized in a kind of flash a big part of what was bugging me about Fassbender. It wasn’t his fault — I realized that he reminded me of someone. One of three people in the world I’d cheerfully wish dead. So MF in any role is probably a loss for me. Oh well.

      Like

  28. […] (Cringes.) Bubble burst again! I dislike Michael Fassbender. Did you have to bring that […]

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

 
%d bloggers like this: