There's been a big bruhaha because Daniel Radcliffe, of Harry Potter fame has been -apparently very successfully- appearing naked on stage doing Eqqus in London.
I kind of find the whole thing mildly amusing and very hypocritical.
For one, it's funny how Americans think that the world revolves around them (nothing new here) and that nobody should do anything that is frowned upon in America.
Memo to Americans: the world does not care. Because in over-sexualized, hyper-puritanical America a naked male body is gawked upon and slobbered over by both repressed teen girls (and boys) and sleazy older men and women, it does not mean that everywhere it will receive the same response.
Two, Radcliffe is NOT Harry Potter. Harry Potter is a creation, not a person. So get off your high horse and do not try and 'boycott' the Potter franchise (like not taking your pure-of-mind kids to the next movie, etc, etc, etc.) it will do nothing to prevent J.K. Rowling from getting a few pounds more in her account. Three stupid backward suburban families in the middle of Iowa a dent do not make in the world economy. So don't threaten to keep your self-righteous ass away from the theaters now that Daniel has showed the full monty in fucking London. What the fuck?
Three, Radcliffe actually looks good and apparently can act. The critics (that waited with abated breath for the premiere) seem to agree that he does a good job at playing the deranged teen who gauges horse's eyes and prances naked on stage. So more power to him. He's trying to grow as an actor (and probably trying to get away from Potter and it's legacy of hysterical parents and screaming pre-teens). Good for him for choosing such a radical way to slash their puritanical hearts. I would have done it, too.
As for the hypocrisy, I'll join the ranks of gawkers. I think he looks very nice. He's a good looking young man and I did look and wondered about his junk when the first pictures hit the internet. I did think he looked kind of attractive when he dived in the water of that bathtube in the last Potter film, but I have to confess that I was busier trying to take a gander at Stanislav Ianevsky, who played the brooding Viktor Krum (much more my cup of tea than squeaky clean Potter) and who gave off all the vibes of the sexually awakening male in his late teens and early twenties. Very yummy that Bulgarian.
But back to Radcliffe: I think he looks very good in those pictures. And the photoshopping geniuses have not taken too much time to fill in the gaps with the bits and pieces missing. And now I have an image in my mind of what Radcliffe, playing that teen looks like when unclothed. And I like it. And so what if he's 'too young'? I have to admit that that has stopped me in many occasions (from passing up indecent proposals from eager youths to not going 'all the way' with the deed when the other part quite does not make it into his twenties). But Daniel makes for good eye candy. And the promise of the man in the youngster is strong and worth waiting for. Meanwhile, go ahead, take a gander. And decide for yourself. Vive la jeunesse!