« STOP NOSING ME!!!! | Main | WaPo Asks: Is That a Recovery in Your Pants? »

August 29, 2009

Debate Question of the Day

A while back there was an interesting article about some kid who stages nude photo shoots on subways. Leaving aside for a moment the question of whether this is "Art" or merely pushing the societal envelope, I found one of his statements fascinating:

"People see a naked woman and they smile," he said to the paper. "They see a penis and they freak out."

Hyman is fully aware of the illegality of his guerrilla style photos, but stands by his art.

"It's art because I'm photographing it," Hyman argues. "They are simply studies in the human body."

He has a point. One of the things the Blog Princess has always complained about when watching movies with The Spousal Unit is the really odd way men are never shown naked in movies - even in bedroom scenes where the camera lingers over the female. So nudity (or even sexual content) is not the issue. The couple are clearly having sex and for whatever reason, the director feels it makes sense to show the woman's body in great detail but not the man's. The most you'll ever see in a movie is a shot of the man from behind.

This phenomenon is not peculiar to America:

While naked breasts, bottoms and spread-eagled legs are splashed across men's magazines with impunity, it seems that Britons are more reserved when it comes to seeing the male form in all its, ahem, glory. This shocking discrepancy has been highlighted by women's magazine Filament, which is campaigning to break what supporters are calling "the final taboo" in British publishing: printing pictures of erect penises. But who, or what, is stopping them?

A foray into the subject reveals that the answer is as well hidden from the public as the aforementioned throbbing members. Before women start brandishing placards, railing against government censorship and fighting for their right to see erect members whenever they damn well please, it seems that this is nothing to do with Whitehall. According to the Home Office, the only legislation magazine publishers are bound by is the Obscene Publications Act of 1959, which forbids them from including anything which may "deprave or corrupt" the reader, and which makes no mention of penises, erect or otherwise.

Broadcasting watchdog Ofcom says there is no ban on showing erections on TV. "There's no outright prohibition of it," says Ofcom's Ed Taylor "But if it was shown it would have to be justified by the context".

Meanwhile, the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) is even more laissez-faire. Rumours that censors sit around clutching an atlas – lest any penis shown in a British film fail the legendary "Mull of Kintyre" test, under which the penis should not exceed the angle equal to that made by the Mull of Kintyre on maps of Scotland – are not true. "It never existed, it was an urban myth," said Sue Clarke of the BBFC "There are no rules against showing erections in '18' films."

I find this even more bizarre in light of p0rn creep - the relentless bleeding over of p0rnographic content into advertising, TV, movies, all facets of popular culture. Last time I checked, most p0rn films feature both men and women. So why is this filtering over of overtly sexual content limited to women's bodies?

Often, it is argued that women's bodies are beautiful and men's are not. But this isn't true. I can testify from my own experience that I find a well shaped man very attractive and enjoy looking.

I don't look, for the most part, because I have found that looking gets my mind going in directions a married woman's mind doesn't need to go. If I indulge the natural desire to look, I find that I think about other men in every day life in a far more sexual way, regardless of whether there is a sexual component to our interaction. I even look at men on the street differently. So my not-looking has nothing to do with not wanting to look, but rather with my opinion that I don't need to make it harder for myself to be faithful to my husband.

I've also noticed that male bloggers who regularly post photos of nude or nearly nude women, when challenged to throw a little red meat to the ladies, invariably post photos where the men are shirtless. Or even worse, they'll choose a photo of a middle aged gentleman with... how shall we say this delicately... a ton of excess avoir dupoir or a gigantic beer belly. But they never post a photo of a genuinely attractive, well muscled young man (the visual equivalent of posting photos of surgically enhanced young women). Moreover, having deliberately posted a photo that doesn't compare at all with the ones they post of women, men frequently they express discomfort or the thread is taken over by women and the guys suddenly fall silent. I find this discomfort odd in light of the fact that these men see nothing socially inappropriate or discomfiting about posting photos of women.

Interesting experiment (you've been warned in advance): try inserting the phrase "naked man" into the Google image search.

Now try the same thing with "naked woman". It's not as though there are no photos of young, well muscled and attractive naked or nearly naked men on the Internet. Clearly there are, because I've been sent such photos by other women (you know, the ones who don't like looking at men and hate sex). I generally don't look at such photos, but in the 6 years I've been on the Internet they've been around. So why doesn't even Google show them when you search specifically on that subject?

What is going on here? Why is it acceptable to post photos of women, but not men? Feel free to opine in the comments section.

Posted by Cassandra at August 29, 2009 09:47 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:


Leaving aside for a moment the question of whether this is "Art"...Why is it acceptable to post photos of women, but not men?

First of all, there are a lot of us who aren't named Art...

Posted by: BillT at August 29, 2009 10:09 AM

Bada boom... bada BING!

Posted by: Cassandra at August 29, 2009 10:16 AM

Because men are embarrassed that they will suffer by comparison. On the otter heiny, I think a lot of it has to do with perception. I had a thought but the CLUs disrupted it. It comes down to this: if men post pics of the ladies, I think it has to do with their hetero-normed identity. IOW, they are straight and this is what they find attractive. Most men wouldn't dare post a pic of full frontal male nudity because of the stigma of homosexuality. I find that odd, because most gay men I was acquainted with truly appreciated feminine pulchritude. Not only that, I think too, that women are soft, curvy and receptive, whereas mens bodies are hard, angular and invasive.

I think you make an excellent point about looking, since we don't need to have our minds wander down those paths, especially if we value our marriages.

Did you read about the idiot in DC who, in order to save his marriage, was dared by his wife to walk the mall naked? sigh. I think too, that men don't want their women to stray, but they have no problem with straying themselves...another double standard...just some thoughts and they are not intended to poke the gentlemen knaves here...just in general, not in particular.

Posted by: Cricket at August 29, 2009 10:31 AM

I think guys (in general) are extremely inventive at coming up with all sorts of reasons why it's OK for them to do something, but not OK for women to do it :p

Posted by: Cassandra at August 29, 2009 10:35 AM

I think that the difference lies in ambiguity. You can show a naked woman and usually not know if she's sexually aroused. But a naked man with an erection? That's pretty clear. So it is easier to claim that a naked woman is art should the question arise.

Posted by: Rex at August 29, 2009 10:44 AM

I think guys (in general) are extremely inventive at coming up with all sorts of reasons why it's OK for them to do something, but not OK for women to do it :p
Posted by: Cassandra at August 29, 2009 10:35 AM

"What's good for the goose is good for the gander"?

Yes, I believe so...although some folks like to take a gander more often than others, I daresay.

Posted by: camojack at August 29, 2009 10:57 AM

Good points, both of you.

I agree that men like to look more than women. But I'm not sure the difference is as great as people think. For instance, I enjoy looking, but over the years I've met a lot of women who like looking more than I do - and I mean a LOT, not just a few.

I think a lot of this has to do with social norms. It's acceptable for guys to look but not for women to do so. I'm not sure that's a bad thing. It just "is".

Posted by: Cassandra at August 29, 2009 11:21 AM

The guy in DC (with the sign?).

I wasn't sure how I felt about that. It seems like a technique that would backfire on the woman. I have observed that guys often don't show a lot of contrition, even when they're genuinely sorry for doing something. It's confusing as hell for women b/c if they don't, we assume they're in denial or don't feel any remorse.

I'm not sure that's always true. A lot of times, guys realize when they've screwed up - they just shove it into a compartment somewhere, though, where a woman would think it was important to make it up to the other person if she cared about the relationship.

There was something that bothered me about that photo of him standing by the side of the road. Intuitively, I don't think putting the guy's a** in a sling is going to help much and may well hurt in the long run.

Posted by: Cassandra at August 29, 2009 11:56 AM

Very interesting question.

I can honestly say I've never been able to take Viggo Mortensen seriously since his willingness to expose himself for all to see on the big screen. In fact, I think I very rudely laughed. Of course, naked men fighting in a bathhouse is a rather uncomfortable thing to watch, anyway.

It wasn't his first time, either. And it sounds absolutely horrible for me to say that I was severely less than impressed, but that's also the truth. There wasn't anything there that I found attractive once the towel came off and the contortions started. Now, Viggo Mortensen with pants on (especially all Aragorn'd up) was a more attractive prospect.

I've spoken to other women about Eastern Promises, though (and I didn't like the movie even aside from the bath-house fight scene), who had a different reaction to it than I did.

In short, I can't explain the difference between the media exploitation of male and female bodies. Male nudity makes no difference to me pro or con as to whether I will watch a movie, but it does make a difference in how I perceive a movie. I found Eastern Promises ridiculous (and it looked painful, punches aside). I couldn't get past it.

On the other hand, Y tu Mama, Tambien had a more natural depiction of male nudity and it didn't take away from the movie for me. As far as I remember - and I don't really remember much about that movie.

Perhaps the reason has more to do with men watching naked men than with women at all. Female sexuality being allowed to be more, errr, open than male sexuality. I can admit to the beauty in a nude female body. Many men I know, on the other hand, are uncomfortable with even admitting that there is male nudity present.

Posted by: airforcewife at August 29, 2009 12:33 PM

If I may hijack the question slightly, why is it acceptable and not homo-erotic to have copious cock'n'balls at the art museum, then?

Have some female directors do more like The Piano. I've no problem with full frontal nudity, if it makes sense, cents, and no scents.

Posted by: smitty at August 29, 2009 01:33 PM

What a way to start a Saturday. Believe it or not, there is a male version of your,

"I don't look, for the most part, because I have found that looking gets my mind going in directions a married woman's mind doesn't need to go."

I believe that you are dealing with the effect of social norms. Give it another generation and you will no longer see the difference.

The part of the p0rn creep that pisses me off is trying to protect my nine year old son. The blatant stuff can be dealt with by a cautious parent, but I am having a harder time figuring out how to explain to him that every photo or video of a women that he sees is a lie brought about by our wonderful digital age.
I am already showing him before and after photoshops of models to get him to realize that women, as wonderfully fascinating as they are, are not blemish free.

Posted by: Russ at August 29, 2009 01:51 PM

When I was in college, my roommates and I had a poster of a shirtless cowboy hanging on the door to the waterheater closet in the living room of our dorm. I've kinda outgrown that kinda thing, though, not that I don't appreciate gazing at a well-muscled, attractive guy. But, to be honest, seeing him in the 'all together' isn't a high priority for me, as far as that goes. Shirtless cowboy thing, or a guy in swim trunks (not a racing Speedo), sure.

Back in my early 20s, my first "real" job after college, I went to a co-workers bachelorette party. It included a trip to a local dance club to see a group of male stripper (only ladies were allowed in until after the stripper were finished). While they never stripped completely, they did get down to just a g-string. While one of my co-workers was all about putting money in said g-string, I didn't get much out of the experience but to say "I've seen male strippers before".

All this being said, I'm having to clean up p0rnographic images out of a certain forum I moderate. They aren't shy about showing an erection, but it's usually in direct connection with a naked woman in very close proximity to it. IMO, very demeaning to woman. While I don't consider that kind of thing "art", there is still that double standard.

As for actual art of naked men found in museums, how many of those naked men are depicted sexually aroused? I'm not aware of any, leastwise anything well-known (a la Michelangelo's David, which I've seen in person). Also, WRT woman, if you know what to look for, you'll have a good idea about the state of her arousal, as well, it's just not as obvious as with a man...

Posted by: Miss Ladybug at August 29, 2009 02:14 PM

Arousing questions in art indeed. And then we have the Wurst Weiners, CDC for Circs...are we on the slippery slope or have we already slid?

Inquiring minds, yanno.

Posted by: HavingFun at August 29, 2009 03:38 PM

I'm going to go with marketing. It's the same reason G.I. Joe can't be American anymore, but has to be represented as some sort of Belgian supercommando force that reports to the UN. Americans don't like that, but the world market is much bigger than America; so, you know, too bad. Movies have to sell to the biggest demographic.

Worldwide, men have much greater buying power than women. Even here at home, teenage boys appear to be the #1 movie-ticket-buying demographic; and children; and couples on dates. Of those three groups, the first one is not interested in seeing a naked man; the second needs no comment; and of the third group, at least half of the couple will find it disgusting.

So really, why would there be pictures of naked men in movies? It doesn't sell abroad, and it doesn't sell at home.

Posted by: Grim at August 29, 2009 05:40 PM

The problem with erections, nocturnal penile tumescence and otherwise, is that they occur at the most inconvenient of times. For men, nudity is function over form. Regarding women, it is form over function. That is the difference between civil law and natural law.

But then, try sharing a motorhome with your best friends or spending two a week or two on Lake Powell in a 40 foot houseboat assuming both conveyances are equipped with one head. After about day three clothing and privacy become tedious especially on a hot day with no air conditioning. Nudity is a social construct that is quickly disposed of under the right conditions and circumstances.

If any of you have a hot tub and a good Merlot the nudity barrier between friends is tenuous. The real test is to seperate your nude friends from your sexual impulses. It is called discipline and values and requires you choose your friends carefully not confusing friend with acquaintance. Don't confuse a fantasy with reality.

Posted by: vet66 at August 29, 2009 07:36 PM

Because a guy looking at a nude guy is considered gay. Even accidentally.

Posted by: Pogue at August 29, 2009 08:37 PM

All interesting comments.

When I was pregnant with my 3rd child, my friends and co-workers threw my baby shower at a male strip club. It was hilarious, but not sexually arousing in any way. What irritated me was that I couldn't drink. That was cruel!

A spring or two ago, I babysat while my daughter and her hubby took a pre-deployment vacation. The house across the street was having some serious landscaping done.

I thoroughly enjoyed watching the young men in cut-offs every day from my rocking chair on the front porch. These guys were a lot more attractive than the strippers. Maybe because it's sexier to see a man sweat while working than dancing?

Posted by: Donna B. at August 29, 2009 08:39 PM

Pogue ~ thanks for that. I just norked Coke all over my keyboard.

Posted by: Sly's Wardrobe Mistress at August 29, 2009 08:58 PM

Nude women are more beautiful than nude men, and men appreciate a nude woman more than women appreciate a nude man.

There's nothing stopping anyone from anything. By now, if nude men were wanted, they'd be as prolific as nude women.

Posted by: Baelzar at August 29, 2009 09:39 PM

I understand all of your points about men liking to look at women, and I don't dispute them.

And yet for the first few decades of my life, you did not see nekkid women literally everywhere you went. The demand - I believe - was still there, and yet the market did not supply that demand.

Posted by: Cassandra at August 30, 2009 07:45 AM

This plainly has something to do with our ape ancestry and male dominance hierarchies. Darwin would explain, if he were still here.

Posted by: Bob Sykes at August 30, 2009 09:49 AM

We men are overated.


Posted by: spd rdr at August 30, 2009 01:31 PM

Cass, i think was is driving the endless parade of bare boobies and more probably goes along with your previous post about welfare and public housing. The same kind of principle applies: when you give one inch, it becomes easier to give the next inch. Etc.

And we may not have naked men everywhere, but I've had to try to find a way around answering questions about erectile dysfunction thanks to those idiotic commercials that seem to be omnipresent on news channels during family viewing time. Not titillating for sure, but irritating and invasive as well.

Oh, and the omnipresence of things that make men look like idiots. I HATE that. If I see another stupid sticker about how boys are dumb or something I might slap someone. But it's perfectly socially acceptable.

Posted by: airforcewife at August 30, 2009 03:07 PM

Okay, my first sentence there totally made no sense. Silly me, trying to watch History Channel and type at the same time...


I think what is driving the endless parade of bare boobies and more...

Posted by: airforcewife at August 30, 2009 03:09 PM

'overated' or oversated?

I always get those two mixed up.

Posted by: Cricket at August 30, 2009 03:43 PM


Posted by: Cassandra at August 30, 2009 04:37 PM

I've had to try to find a way around answering questions about erectile dysfunction...

There's a new medication for that -- it works by lowering the woman's expectations...

Posted by: BillT at August 30, 2009 04:38 PM

Having rarely been sated, much less oversated, I will admit that things sure ain't what they used to be.

Then again, as Mae West is alleged to have once remarked, Too much of a good thing is...




Posted by: bthun at August 30, 2009 06:30 PM

"Is that a pickle in yer pocket or are something called 'Art?'"

Posted by: Cricket at August 30, 2009 06:33 PM

Over rated, Cricket. Over rated. Over worked. Over extended. Over stressed. Over due. And some days, just over the fricken wall.

In other words: normal.

Seriously, if it was just us guys running the show, there wouldn't be one of us that would choose another in Fantasy Football draft. You ladies make us look good - God knows why - but its true.

And I'll bust the nose of any man who calls me a liar.

Then again, we probably wouldn't give a rat's behind, either.

Posted by: spd rdr at August 30, 2009 06:52 PM

Sunday evening... The youngest is moved. Ma Gaia has been bestowing her blessed rain upon the unworthy for the better part of two days. Yup, life is good.

And ya know what? When spd says,

"You ladies make us look good - God knows why - but its true."
He may just be on to something. *Mights well stay with the Sunday evening theme of G rated, well dressed, jazz pianists who provide their own vocal accompaniment.*

Posted by: bthun at August 30, 2009 07:18 PM

Sweet, bthun. Mr Garner could melt the shingles off of an old house. Magic in the man.

But, you know I've been humming this song all day long. It just feels right when August is slipping away.

And yanno what? Maybe I'll just sing it again all day tomorrrow. And the next day. Some things just can never change for the worse.

Posted by: spd rdr at August 30, 2009 07:44 PM

Very nice Spd!

Listening to Frank while watching the slides, I had a recollection of Pee Wee Reese & Dizzy Dean. No matter what was cooking, a boy just could not miss Pee Wee & Dizzy calling the game.

Summertime as a kid back then was so nearly perfect.

<sarc>Little did I know in those days how incomplete my life was. Nor could I imagine how far we would progress as a culture. Impromptu nekkid photo shoots in the middle of the day in public places... It's art because he says so. Indeed. </sarc>

Yup, progress.

Posted by: bthun at August 30, 2009 08:48 PM

Ya gots ta love spd. His timing is impeccable.
Yes indeed, the rain has been a blessing. Cooling things off.

Posted by: Cricket at August 31, 2009 08:19 AM

"...try inserting the phrase "naked man" into the Google image search"

You're using the wrong key words.....that's the word on the street, anyway.

"...I have found that looking gets my mind going in directions a married woman's mind doesn't need to go."

It doesn't matter where you get your *appetite*, as long as you go home to *eat*.

Posted by: DL Sly at August 31, 2009 01:26 PM

I am sure that works for some people, and I have no desire to tell anyone else how to live their life.

But I've been alive long enough to know my limits.

Posted by: Cassandra at August 31, 2009 01:38 PM

Re: Demand v/s Supply

While I agree that Demand likely hasn't changed all that much, but that supply certainly has, has the proportionality of that supply changed?

That is if 50 years ago you could find 100 pictures of nekkid women and only 1 of a dude, is it still 100:1 today? or is it 10:1 or 1000:1?

In general, I would expect it to the general phenomenae to be demand related.

Female nudity:
Men: Yay!
Women: OK, yeah, whatever, I've seen 'em before.

Male nudity:
Women: Yay!
Men: Ick gross, get me some Iodine, get me some hot water, where's the eye bleach!

If you've ever read the graphic novel or seen the movie for Watchmen, it makes this point pretty blatently. The male nudity makes a whole lot more sense to the story than the female nudity does. The latter is a pretty standard sex scene, but the former is a demonstration of the character's loss of humanity. As time goes on, this guy's near-omnipotence drives him further and further away from seeing the point in the human niceties, from emotion, even to the point of complete apathy to the extintion of the human race. "OK, so all humans are dead. What's your point?" For this character to see any point to clothing would be absurd and so he goes through 75% of the story completely stark naked.

Although, I must confess after about the 3rd or 4th time I was thinking to myself "OK Mr. Writer, I get the point, now you're just being rude."

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at August 31, 2009 02:43 PM

"OK Mr. Writer, I get the point, now you're just being rude."

Funny, that's how a lot of women feel 95% of the time, especially as there's generally little or no plot relevance involved.

I suspect a lot of men would feel that way if there were the same amount of gratuitous male nudity out there that there is gratuitous female nudity :p

I have often thought it would be interesting, just for one day, to switch things around. It's not that I want to be surrounded by photos of nude and nearly nude men. But it is mildly (and sometimes more than mildly) off putting to have it shoved in your face 24/7 especially when you consider the way it is presented.

Posted by: Cassandra at August 31, 2009 02:58 PM

Here's another interesting question:

While I agree that Demand likely hasn't changed all that much, but that supply certainly has, has the proportionality of that supply changed?

My guess is, yes. MUCH more female nudity. Slightly more (proportionally) male nudity. But there's another aspect: has the increased supply for images of women increased the demand for images of women?

I would say, "yes", both in quantity and intensity.

Posted by: Cassandra at August 31, 2009 03:00 PM

Sorry. Should have been "supply OF"...women...

Posted by: Cassandra at August 31, 2009 03:01 PM

has the increased supply for images of women increased the demand for images of women?

It's an interesting Chicken-Egg question. No doubt it's a feedback loop, but I wonder what it was that pushed it over the edge.

I don't think just the advance in technology is sufficient to explain it. Though it certainly multiplies the effects, it seems more a catalyst than a cause since technology has always proceeded forward and we don't see the explosion of sexuality with any other technological innovations (and it's pretty clear that men have liked the nude female form since time immemorial).

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at August 31, 2009 03:22 PM

I suspect a lot of men would feel that way if there were the same amount of gratuitous male nudity out there that there is gratuitous female nudity :p

Like I said, I rather think that was the point: "Let's thrown in some irrelevent female nudity and some relevent male nudity and see which gets more complaints."

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at August 31, 2009 03:51 PM

Fat hater.


Do I get props? Noooooo, I get sneers.

I go out of my way to help you keep on the straight and narrow and I get snarked.


Posted by: The Great Googly-Moogly Jiggling Giant Mound of Avoirdupois of Argghhh! at August 31, 2009 04:51 PM

Oh stop!

I have nothing against a man who looks real (as opposed to the pretty boys one sees photos of). I was just attempting to draw the parallel between the tiny, airbrushed and surgically enhanced, very young women we see all around us, and you know it! :p

I happen to think women look nice with a few curves that don't come from silicone, and I like guys who aren't perfectly sculpted and who have waxed every inch of their bodies until they are bare as a baby's bottom. But we all know your cute neighbor Phyllis or her husband Phred are not what makes the movies or magazines.

Posted by: Cassandra at August 31, 2009 05:09 PM

I happen to think women look nice with a few curves that don't come from silicone...

Yeah me, too. A whole lot. But what's with the business of women getting their lips all blown up? Nobody cleared this look with me beforehand, and I think it's goofy as hell for otherwise attractive women to appear in public looking a pair of lipsticked bananas have attached themselves under their (new, perfectly upturned) nose. Time for some "lip -o -suction," gals.

...and I like guys who aren't perfectly sculpted and who have waxed every inch of their bodies until they are bare as a baby's bottom.

In that case, m'ladyyour Prince awaits.

Posted by: spd rdr at August 31, 2009 07:27 PM

oh...stop it..BANANAS? I can't stop laughing...and now I have this image of Rosie Perez on collagen.


Posted by: Cricket at August 31, 2009 07:44 PM

"I happen to think women look nice with a few curves that don't come from silicone..."
Well, yeah!

I once heard someone, maybe Neal Boortz, refer to ladies with poofed up, botox/collagen injected lips as having two lower lips. But hey, I suppose they be sexy, if you're drawn to kissing a tractor tire's inner tube.

I dunno, it must be that age thing, but I find that I appreciate the natural beauty of most ladies much more than the artificially induced swats, slices, and injections used to construct some Hollywood and/or Madison Avenue ideal of beauty.

Then again, what do I know? I'm just another bitter-n-cling, knuckle dragging, NRA-ILA card carrying, flown-over Neanderthal.

Posted by: bt's_eye-of-the-beholder_hun at August 31, 2009 08:01 PM

In that case, m'lady your Prince awaits.

/SMACK!!! :)

Punk. I meant haven't waxed every inch of their bodies...

*shaking head*

As for the puffy lip thing, I have never understood that. When actresses first started injecting silicone in their lips, I was kind of stunned.

When I was a little girl, I would have given anything to have a thin, Peggy Lipton mouth. I thought she was the most beautiful woman I'd ever seen.

But that isn't how the good Lord made me. I had wavy hair, no freckles, and full lips. I guess sooner or later we learn to be comfortable in our own skin.

Posted by: Cassandra at August 31, 2009 08:33 PM

No cosmetic surgeon has touched this body. All natural curves, naturally thin upper lip. I don't ever plan on getting injected, implanted, tucked or whatever. If a man would rather I do all that stuff just to get his interest, he's not a man I would want to waste my time with, anyway. Only "modification" I allow myself if wrt my hair. Used to perm it, quit doing that when I went back to school and needed to trim the budget, and now I see I don't need to anymore (my hair has decided to get wavy naturally, go figure...), and I do have my hair highlighted to hide my gray (though I had to stop that for a while, too, while I was back in school). I do those things for me, not for a man.

Posted by: Miss Ladybug at August 31, 2009 10:23 PM

I was thinking about this last night. If his statement is correct: "People freak out" then the phenomenea occurs in *both* genders.

I get that men are more predisposed to enjoy naked women more than men, but if he is correct, why are women having the same reaction?

Is it simply desensitization since nearly nude women are more common? Is it the notion (probably quite well founded) that men running around in public in the buff are more likely to be predators?

Of course that brings up another double standard scenario where exhibitionist women may be considered to have low morals but otherwise harmless, but men who do the exact same thing are dangerous predators.

Then again, as Grim is want to point out, men and women *are* different and perhaps *ought* to be treated differently because of that. In most cases, a woman (especially of the subset of the magazine type) would have a very difficult time actually physically overcoming a 6'2", 205lb male while the reverse would be quite easy, indeed. So regardless of the intentions, the male tends to be the one with the ability. And thus, since he can win, it is a more serious offense.


Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at September 1, 2009 10:19 AM

Oh, and on the lips thing: I've never understood why anyone who looks like Janice would be considered sexy.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at September 1, 2009 10:32 AM

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at September 1, 2009 10:37 AM

I find that Janice rather interesting.

Posted by: Hummer at September 1, 2009 02:30 PM

Good heavens. To think that it has come to this...

When we lost the Shekinah glory of God, due to the actions of Adam and Eve, "... and they saw that they were naked, and they were ashamed...".

Do you know why? Because before, we were covered in God's glory, and now, that has been taken away from us.

God then re-clothed us in animal skins, and ever since then we have seen clothing as a sign of civilisation, the covering of our nakedness and a sign of our adapting the environment to our needs (i.e. instead of growing fur, we make it).

And now you want us to go backwards? Let me be the first to say that yes, I like to see women in the nude... and I am ashamed of it. I regret the impulses that drive me to mentally wonder what women look like naked. I sure as heck don't want to further give in to it any more...

Posted by: Gregory at September 2, 2009 11:07 PM

And now you want us to go backwards?

Not sure if this was in response to something I said or not, but no, I don't want us to go backwards.

I think that the more crowded the world gets, the more need there is for rules and the artificial adjustments we make to our natures that keep us from killing each other. But that doesn't seem to be what is happening at all nowadays. In some ways it's exactly the opposite - people have an in-your-face attitude about not caring enough to show some self restraint when that's warranted.

I don't think our natures are evil or wrong or wrong/bad. I just think consideration is required for different people to get along smoothly, and I'm not much impressed by the "I'm wired that way, get over it" school of thought :p

Posted by: Cassandra at September 2, 2009 11:19 PM

Just keep your hands off my sneakers and we'll get along just fine.

Posted by: spd rdr at September 3, 2009 01:37 AM

Cassandra: No, not what you posted originally, but the direction in which the thread is flying. I mean, you start off wondering why there are not so many pictures of naked men as there are of women, and then people are chiming in with 'ohh! yeah! why not? I like looking at nekkid men! women too! and make sure they're the natural type!'. At least, that is how it seems like to me. I'll admit as I'm posting from work, my read on the matter is necessarily superficial...

But as to the reason why more naked pictures of women than men, well, the nature of the beast, I guess. Most men in a general way can agree to general types of eye bleach in terms of women, whereas judging the attractiveness of other men? Aside from 'teh ghey' vibes, it is also the fact that we don't spend nearly as much time pondering over the issue. It's not as if there is a majority of men deciding whether Andy Sully's 'glutes' are better than Ron Jeremy's junk, after all.

Now, why women don't post as much nekkid men is where your guess is probably better than mine. Or maybe just that men look so much better clothed. Think about it; don't you think men are more distinguished and dignified in suits, or combat gear, or the cowboy look, rugged-looking in the jeans and the ruffled shirts and stuff?

But again, I believe our public discourse has degenerated to the gutter, and we should be discouraging the overtly sexualising imagery of our women and children, much less the menfolk as well.

Posted by: Gregory at September 3, 2009 11:00 PM

I don't want to be seeing naked men all over the place, but I certain do appreciate a nicely sculpted torso...

Posted by: Miss Ladybug at September 3, 2009 11:25 PM