Why do people fear IT?

[WilliamCA]

I watch cable and so many other forms of television and art. We live in a male-dominated world (or so the feminist and liberals tell us) so why is there this fear of seeing male buttocks or male genitalia. Even on prime time television they go out of their way to show as much female skin as possible but with men it's like a total taboo. Even on shows such as Real Sex they do not show any male genitalia. Why the taboo, as if a woman's nude is some how less offensive then a man's nude body? What's the deal?

WilliamCA

[RalphVa]

It's just one of those taboos in our society.

I think it's ridiculous.

[finchick]

well, maybe just because female genitalia are less noticeble...

[nudenwv]

good post! i have heard in the past,maybe on some talk show, the male is not entirely shown due to the fact the reproduction organ is on the outside of the body. the female reproduction organ is inside the body. no fault of ours. that's the way the maker devleoped us. i think society and media play a huge part in what is accepted and not accepted. it all boils down to the sex thing.

[NudeAl]

This reminds me of the naked girlfriend episode on Sienfeld. Remember how Jerry gets a girlfriend who loves to walk around the apartment nude? Well he goes on to describe it to his friends and what not then he tires to flip it on her by walking around nude himself and she gets all bent out of shape, LOL. Something about how the nude female form is a thing of beauty but a nude male is not. How it is just more utilitarian and functional but not pretty to look at.

I don't think we are going to see a reversal of this in our time. We have so many phobias regarding our bodies it isn't funny. Notice how many comercials there are for Viagra and what not however when one prime time show displays a bare male but they get slammed by the FCC. Go figure.

[NatureFred]

I agree that it's a cultural thing, but that's a lot like saying rain is a weather thing, it doesn't explain anything.

It's obvious that we think differently about penises and vulvas. For example, every naturist website I have visited has at least a paragraph about the problem, or lack thereof, of men developing erections at nudist venues. Every nudist resort website I have been to offers advice on what to do if you develop an erection. Apparently, although we naturists are all adamant that there's nothing wrong with the sight of a naked penis when it's flaccid, there is something wrong with the sight of an erect one, and we are expected to conceal it under those cicumstances. Some even seem to feel we should be ashamed of an erect penis, while others allow it's nothing to be ashamed of, but we certainly should cover it up.

Now let me hasten to assure everyone that I'm not looking to walk around waving my erect penis at people. I've never gotten an erection at a nude venue--if you read my post about nudity and comfort, you'll see that social nudity isn't like that for me. I'm just saying that, clearly, the penis has a somewhat special status in our culture, too, not just in the so-called "textile" culture.

Maybe if we look within ourselves and ask why we don't want men with erections walking around at our favorite venues, we'll find it's pretty much the same reason less nude-comfortable people don't want penises in any condition visible on their TVs.

[MoonShadow]

I have wondered the same thing as you guys have and never understood why male genitalia had to be hidden at all times whereas the female genitalia was exposed, flaunted, exploited, or whathaveyou.

In addition to what you have posted here, maybe, it is biblical (now bear with me on this radical look-see - LOL). Back in the garden where Eve was tempted by the serpent to eat from the tree of life that the penis represents the serpent. Like the serpent who penatrates Eve's mind with temptation, men's penises which penetrate is a temptation.

Another is that the art world gave us both the nude male and female in all its beauty but then was transformed into nude beauty means nude female form rather than the nude beauty of both the female and male form. Now, centuries later with the advertising world as it is - somehow the nude male form was dropped out of the picture altogether and anything representing nudity is the female form. Perhaps this was due that the initial world of advertising and fashion was male-dominated.

I think both the male and female form are beautiful and that includes the genitalia as it is part of the two bodies.

[4X]

Another is that the art world gave us both the nude male and female in all its beauty but then was transformed into nude beauty means nude female form rather than the nude beauty of both the female and male form. Now, centuries later with the advertising world as it is - somehow the nude male form was dropped out of the picture altogether and anything representing nudity is the female form. Perhaps this was due that the initial world of advertising and fashion was male-dominated.

I think it has more to do with the fact that these days so much advertising tries to use sex appeal to sell, and to advertisers that means nudity. Because men are so much more visually stimulated than women in general, this then means primarily female nudity; male nudity just doesn't have the overall effect.

[Josh-here]

I think this topic is so true it's hilarious!
You can especially even see this reality in other countries where the TV fare is not as pruddish as in the US. I was in one country that had a variety show that would have strip teases and the gals would end up totally nude, but when they had guys strip "for the ladies"
they always ended up in bikini underwear or g-strings and the ladies were "oohing and aaahing". It was so hilarious because it wasn't any different than what you would see on the public beach!!

Another time there was this "naughty" comedy movie on and it always shows these young cute female bombshells running around naked and giggling with some fully dressed middle aged guy chasing them around. That was in a culture with a lot of "machismo" and the flick was from the 60s or 70s.

[MoonShadow]

I
male nudity just doesn't have the overall effect.

Sure it would if it was presented as often and as routinely and with the same sexual inuendos and overtones as it has been with female nudity.

[Boreas]

I think the fact that traditionally most producers of TV and movies were (and perhaps still are) male, would account for something. These men don't want to see other men......they want to see "naked babes"!

[MoonShadow]

You're spot on there too, Boreas!

[Sanslines]

We fear 'it' because of the fantastic hypocritical nonsense that permeates our society. This nonsense involves men who openly exploit women and their bodies for monetary gain and women who for a variety of wrongful reasons go along with this exploitation. Many men fear or feel uncomfortable around other men's nudity because of so called 'gay fears'. Anyone who is actually comfortable within themselves (and this most certainly includes body acceptance) will not have these fears. Those who hate or fear gays are actually insecure people who harbor a form of self hatred that has very little to do with others. The self hatred is only manifestated and fostered upon others.

[WilliamCA]

I have wondered the same thing as you guys have and never understood why male genitalia had to be hidden at all times whereas the female genitalia was exposed, flaunted, exploited, or whathaveyou.

In addition to what you have posted here, maybe, it is biblical (now bear with me on this radical look-see - LOL). Back in the garden where Eve was tempted by the serpent to eat from the tree of life that the penis represents the serpent. Like the serpent who penatrates Eve's mind with temptation, men's penises which penetrate is a temptation.

Another is that the art world gave us both the nude male and female in all its beauty but then was transformed into nude beauty means nude female form rather than the nude beauty of both the female and male form. Now, centuries later with the advertising world as it is - somehow the nude male form was dropped out of the picture altogether and anything representing nudity is the female form. Perhaps this was due that the initial world of advertising and fashion was male-dominated.

I think both the male and female form are beautiful and that includes the genitalia as it is part of the two bodies.


*wow* I really like your post. I don't know but there seems be some kind of insightfulness to it. I can't put my finger on it but i do like your post.

WilliamCA

[WilliamCA]

We fear 'it' because of the fantastic hypocritical nonsense that permeates our society. This nonsense involves men who openly exploit women and their bodies for monetary gain and women who for a variety of wrongful reasons go along with this exploitation. Many men fear or feel uncomfortable around other men's nudity because of so called 'gay fears'. Anyone who is actually comfortable within themselves (and this most certainly includes body acceptance) will not have these fears. Those who hate or fear gays are actually insecure people who harbor a form of self hatred that has very little to do with others. The self hatred is only manifested and fostered upon others.


Scary thought...what if it's penis envy. What if the whole deal with all this is the last thing men want to see on TV is the fact that some blonde haired, scrawny comedian is packing major heat in the groin department.

And another thought, what if it's all about ego as well. The last thing a guy wants to have happen is for everyone on national TV to see he is inadequate by someone's standards. And what about the countless women who will see this well endowed actor and compare their husbands/boyfriends.

You know...the more I think on it the more i think we should keep the ban up for the sake of all humanity... :p

WilliamCA

[Sanslines]

Scary thought...what if it's penis envy. What if the whole deal with all this is the last thing men want to see on TV is the fact that some blonde haired, scrawny comedian is packing major heat in the groin department.

And another thought, what if it's all about ego as well. The last thing a guy wants to have happen is for everyone on national TV to see he is inadequate by someone's standards. And what about the countless women who will see this well endowed actor and compare their husbands/boyfriends.

You know...the more I think on it the more i think we should keep the ban up for the sake of all humanity... :p

WilliamCA

Why would any self assured man allow others to tell him how to feel or if he is adequate or inadequate? Any woman who thinks of her husband or boyfriend as only a 'walking piece of endowment' needs to be shown the highway.

[NudeAl]

The penis is a powerful symbol.

I don't know when it began to be viewed so negatively but in the ancient world it was a powerful symbol of virility and fertility. A thing to be worshiped even a symbol of good luck in Roman times, the larger the penis the more good luck you had. I suppose it was the rise of Christianity and the negative views the church had on all things sexual.

Anyway, here's wishing you big penis.

[l2ltlarry]

I think the reason IT is feared is that exposed penises in all states are perceived as threatening and dangerous. In particular, the harder the penis, the more dangerous IT is considered to be. The harder penis = dangerous penis is as true with most nudists whose thoughts I have read as with body-fearing non- and anti- nudists.

Even doctors -- both male and female -- strike me as having this fear, and routinely shy away from the genital area of males during exams.

There is a book called 'The Hardness Factor' plus one or two other books I've read recently - one by a doctor at The Cleveland Clinic - that say that men's penises are the thermometer or "dip stick" to gauge the state of their general health, the harder the healthier. At least 2 doctors criticize the majority of doctors who can't bring themselves to focus on the penis during male medical histories and exams.

I like what one artist of a long time ago said about human bodies:

"The nude human body is the most beautiful object on this earth - not as an object of desire, but as a miracle of blood, bone, muscle, and skin."

It's unfortunate that something as beautiful, fascinating, intriguing, marvelous, wondrous, and any other superlatives one can think of, is so forbidden to be viewed, except in the most limited of circumstances.

And - sorry, nudists - hard penises are every bit as beautiful parts of nude bodies as the soft, more acceptable kind.

Thanks, WilliamCA, for starting this interesting discussion.

[swnudedude]

Check out the book "Rumning Scared" by Peter Lehman which discusses masculinity and how the male body is represented in contemporary art and culture. The book echoes many of the posts in this thread.

[JeepNude]

First of all, it has nearly nothing to do with Christianity. Afterall, Christ himself spent a great deal of time nude. Walked out of the tomb nude too. There is a lot of nudity in the Bible. It is PEOPLE that are the problem.

It gets even worse. I asked this some time ago, but never did get the straight answer- Why is it OK for PBS to show nude Africans on TV, but not OK to show nude white people? The answer I got from the network was because the Africans they show are in their natural state. Whatever that means. My natural state is also nude, yet I am not 'showable' on TV in my natural state. Why? I'm white! Not fair at all.

So, it isn't just male-female acceptance, it is also racial. I have said many times, since I am not a racist, I simply don't care or give notice. A black person just has a really awesome tan in my eyes. If you start deciding what is decent vs. indecent by skin color, isn't that racism? Maybe if I was a racist it would make sense to me. I do know that the people at PBS are definitely racist, no question. they believe that white people are somehow superior to the Africans they put on prime time TV without a stitch of clothing, as if they were animals and not even human. That infuriates me!!! Bigots!!!

I believe that skin color is nothing more than that. Sure, there are subtle DNA differences in races, but we are all human. No human is superior to another in that regard. There should be no double standard. America's Funniest Home Videos should not have to blur out baby bottoms of little kids, but at least they do it to all kids, not just the white skinned ones. PBS is whack.

[JeepNude]

BTW, my wife is a salt-pepper mix. I am envious of her subtle all-over tan!! But, now that it is late summer, I am finally darker than her, ha ha!!

[bernardc]

Its silly!I have had that fight also.If the female genitals are exposed,why not the male.I think we should fight for equal exposure.!

[sdson]

I totally agree. In my opinion which is just that, not based on research or data; only life experience and obeservations; it seems that men are more comfortable with nudity than women. I base this opinion on postings on this board which appears to be predominantly male and related postings such as "reluctant spouse" concering social nudity. Additionally, in my own experience the number of males who frequent and participate in nude recreation at the beach far outnumber the females. Also growing up in the late 60's and early 70's it was accepted for boys to swim nude in school swim programs. That's just the way it was, it was not only accepted but required. Conversely, girls and women don't appear to be as participative in the nude recreation that men & boys do as previously mentioned. However, in society it is more acceptable seeing females appear totally nude in film and print while it is not as prevalent for males (although it's slowly changing). Could it be that along with nudity in film and print comes the idea of individuals portrayed this way as being objectified? If this is the case, men appearing totally nude in film and print may be associated with being objectified and with that less powerful. It's an interesting spin on male nudity especially considering that male nudes portrayed in greek and roman art were considered heroic. Quite a change over time.

[nudebushwalker]

Have to remember as well that this "taboo" is stronger and more pronounced in North America and parts of Asia - we do have male nudity on TV over here in Oz (and probably have a larger proportion of "free", and unrestricted, beaches here as well - which is probably only to be expected when we do have the most beaches - but that's completely off-topic, too..), and they have even more exposure in many parts of Europe.

The situation up in Queensland a couple of years ago (don't know about now..), was that a women could go nude in some areas, but wouldn't be charged with with wilful or obscene behaviour until she spread her legs a bit wider - because, as a couple of others have mentioned previously, the reproductive parts of her genitalia are usually hidden away inside...

[Centauri4]

I agree with the earlier posts that both bodies are equally attractive, but I would like to add so many men do not take care of themselves and therefore ONLY appear as the Greek, Roman and Egyptians depicted the nude male form early in our lives. This may have everything to do with the "appeal" factor regardless of whether we are talking about the level of appeal to men or women. I am a confirmed heterosexual male but I understand how it is possible for some men to "love" the appearance of other men, and I have seen at least one homosexually-oriented video in my lifetime where I could say the actors were "sexy"! Seriously, this was not like the guys in "traditional" old school mainstream pornography, this was like bodybuilding-type men, "Thunder From Down Under" or Chippendales-class men and there is no denying by any standard they were extremely physically attractive!

Comments were made about virility, naked aggression (I think) and penetration, and these are all true; I have read comments about the erect male penis being regarded as a "sword" or "instrument of domination" and it is also widely known the male "superior" position is regarded as the classic procreation arrangement. Did I would that tactfully enough?

Men do not appreciate our role as the "Impregnator" or women's as the "Impregnatee"; made up words but as close as I can come to using an illustrative term; this again is all about aggression, making something (a new life) and giving or propagating male-dominant attitudes.

Perhaps if someone did a study on peoples' psychological reaction to video clips such as Music Television segments, workout videos, public television Art Lesson video and things while studying the subtle tell-tale signs of physical reaction in both men and women I think there would be no doubt BOTH sexes would instinctively react to the slimmer, tanner, "built" men. It is in our DNA, our survival instincts and also heavily reinforced by print advertising and tele-media.

I enjoy seeing everyone naked because I have had the fortunate experience of seeing many HAPPY naked people in my life, but there must be less fortunate parts of the world where nudity equals "pure" poverty and unending daily suffering. In those impoverished corners of the world, I suppose people would instinctively get "aroused" at the sight of a nice suit, stylish dress or beautifully done hairdo.

~

[JeepNude]

I have seen some of those places. I have to tell you, nude people who are nude because they are THAT poor and starving will make the strongest man cry. It is not a pretty sight. Seeing young ones laying in piles of their own filth, too weak to move, etc. Maggots and insects burrowing into their flesh as they lay helpless and dying from disease. It really puts your own life into perspective.

Now, I will tell you this- Most of the impoverished people I have met look at the clothing of those who have it as a status symbol. To own clean clothing, that much more. They will eagerly wear clothing even if it is uncomfortable, just because. It makes you feel quite privileged to be able to CHOOSE to wear clothing or not.

The most simple things create great joy in some people, while others are not happy no matter how much they have, etc. It is all in your perspective.

As for the human form being attractive, that is true. You worded it well. However, I have to disagree with your conclusion that men look 'sexy'. I have never found men sexually attractive, but I can tell when a man is physically attractive from a health standpoint. That was right on.

And, your 'tanner' comment reminds me of a sign that was outside a tanning salon I used to drive past frequently. It said "Tan fat looks better than bright white fat". Being an ideal weight guy, I found great humor in it. They later took it down because too many people (weenies) were 'offended'. Those people need to read about 4 paragraphs up.

[NJNude1965]

Ever since I was a pre-teen this has been an issue of nudity in the media.

I say this allow it. Why? If a writter of a movie or T.V. show has a scene were some one is taking a bath or even like I do live in my place nude it should be filmed that way.

What shouldn't be allowed is T.V. shows with nudity for the sake of ratings.

We need to accept the nude body and not get all :eek: about it.

[Navigator]

Additionally, in my own experience the number of males who frequent and participate in nude recreation at the beach far outnumber the females.


My wife and I were regulars for over a decade...every weekend, all year long...at the nude beach at San Onofre in S.Ca. In fact, we met there.

Each weekend we sat with the same group of 4-6 couples and this subject would come up sometimes. Since we were there all the time, we knew all the regulars...most of whom were couples.

Here's what we noticed. If you looked down the beach on a busy afternoon you would see guys standing to talk while their wives and girlfriends were sitting to talk and socialize. This made the guys FAR more obvious at first glance. Guys stand around in small groups with their feet in the water with a cold beer, or maybe next to the vollyball courts watching the game, while their women were sitting just up the beach with their women friends.

So...if you were a newcomer walking into the nude beach area and scanning the crowd (which is frequently 500 or more people in the summer) your first "wide-angle" impression would be that there are a LOT more guys than girls.

Since we knew most everyone, when we would see a guy by himself we would know his wife was nearby, but a newcomer wouldn't see it the same way.

Of course, this wasn't true for the gay area, and if you count that then perhaps you're right. If you don't count the gays that go to their end of the beach, then San Onofre at the volleyball end is, by far, mostly couples and family's with kids.

You just don't see it initially because guys stand up to socialize more often and women, more often, sit in their beach chairs to socialize.

Also, we've noticed the same effect at Haulover Beach in Florida.

[bernardc]

I think again,in agreement with you,that homosexual porn movies in a way has to do with the male genitals not being exhibited all that often.Porn actualy has a lot to do with it,and i think that the "penetration ability" of the penis is over emphasized.Perhaps also the subconcious notion that the penis erects is a conttributing factor.Should a penis erect,or semi erect,the connotation is that of "Sex".Maybe,the media must be re-educated to the fact that erections,and the penis perse is not only for sexual gratification,but a very beautifull part of creation.
I also think,that seeing these models with huge penises,causes another problem,and somehow size is status.Its just a thought.The maleness of men must not be judged on size or performance,but as a natural part and manifestation of what a biological male is.

[bernardc]

"talking about the level of appeal to men or women. I am a confirmed heterosexual male but I understand how it is possible for some men to "love" the appearance of other men, and I have seen at least one homosexually-oriented video in my lifetime where I could say the actors were "sexy"! Seriously, this was not like the guys in "traditional" old school mainstream pornography, this was like bodybuilding-type men, "Thunder From Down Under" or Chippendales-class men and there is no denying by any standard they were extremely physically attractive!"

Just agreeing with you here,but from another angle.I think that the main image or stigma people have with the male genitals in the media,is that due to porn,its associated to much with sexual performance such as penetration,and ejaculation,and is seen only as a sexual tool.
Further more,perhaps the focus on the hugeness of the male penis is also over emphasised in films,and that brings with it sexual performance.Maleness is assumed by the hugeness/thickness of the penis,and that is seen as a status symble of sorts.
The penis must not determine maleness,only the biological ID of one as a male person.The penis must not be singled out,but seen as a part of creation,as is hands or feet etc.This I believe ,can be traced back to body curiosity and body shame.The hidden fear that a penis could erect is immediately associated with sexualness,and not seen as a normal act of humanity as for example,getting goose bumps.It must be seen as a physiological normality of being male.Perhaps the publick needs to be re-educated.A penis is not special,and neither is a vagina.Equal exposure,I say.:)

[Liam C]

I think again,in agreement with you,that homosexual porn movies in a way has to do with the male genitals not being exhibited all that often.

I can't say that I understood much of what you said but especially this sentence. Why do you single out "homosexual" porn? I wouldn't think that type of porn is seen by very many people.

[bernardc]

I can't say that I understood much of what you said but especially this sentence. Why do you single out "homosexual" porn? I wouldn't think that type of porn is seen by very many people.

Liam,I was merely pointing out that the male penis is so stressed on gay porn.And with it,the size is usually pretty impressive.Then by those sort of movies,the emphasis is on the penis as a sexual organ,erect and ejaculating.Its not seen as a normal part of the body,such as a hand,as an example.
Then I said,that the penis is usualy stigmatised as only for sexual purposes.Perhaps there is a connotation/pornographic conotation attached to the penis,and when a penis is showed on tv or in a film,it automatically conjures up the idea of sex.And perhaps,the directers of movies have a subconcious fear that the penis of a star might erect,and create a funny impression.Time then costs money,if they have to then re-shoot the scene.
I also wanted to point out that,perhaps the neglecting of showing penises on the screen,is connected in some way to body shame.The people must be educated that the penis is not merely a sex instrument,its an organ used also to urinate,and is as much part of the body as is a foot.So in short,the penis must not be issolated as ONLY a sex-instrument and tool,but part of the estheticness of the body.If females can have their genitals exposed,then so can men.I hope it made the point a bit clearer.I am not gunning gays,just that the male organ is mostly over played in gay porn,and for that reason,hetro porn as well.I just used the gay metaphore as a point of illustration.Sorry if it ofended you.:o

[Liam C]

Bernardc: You didn't offend me at all. I was just amused. I gather you watch a lot of gay porn. You are probably aware then that many of the top male gay porn stars also appear in straight porn. They do whichever is paying at the moment. :D

[nakedstudent]

I think the taboo is a direct product of the textile world and the sexual tension and tendencies of its members. The people who tend to watch shows and movies with a lot of skin are typically straight males. I think maybe the hormonal differences between straight males and females and gays are part of it.

The people who want to look at skin are programed differently. It's a cultural and biological thing and these tendencies won't go away until the sexuality of the textiled world does.

[mmacdonaldca]

Just an observation from a Canadian...for the most part our TV signals are beamed in from the US. But those stations originating in Canada are easy to find by their content. The broadcast rules in Canada are a bit more liberal when it comes to nudity, sexual content and language. Of course for the most part, channels are only available on cable or satallite. Over the air signals are becoming a thing of the past.

Back to what is allowable...there are zones of time when certain content can not be shown (or heard) but for the most part it if makes sense to the story line and it is not over the top in the censores eyes, it can air. An example, the word "s**t" is often heard on prime time shows. The word "f**k" can be heard on the news when criminals are being taken away. (yes, I self-censored there). There is even a game show called "You Bet Your ***"

As for nudity, as stated by most, the female form is seen a lot more than the male form, but we also see a lot more of that form. Full frontals can be seen from time to time. The male form can be seen in its entirety now and then as well. And not just on premiem services. An example is when Queer as Folk aired in Canada. (the "US" version) It was co-produced by a Canadian company and taped in Toronto. The completely unedited version of the show was aired on a channel available on basic cable. Even shows like The Sopranos cold be seen unedited on one of our national networks (available without cable)

I think this issue all depends on who is in charge of the broadcast regulator at any given time. The more conservative the gov't, the tighter the rules. Lets stay vocal about censorship in any context! The statement they rule makes always use is "its what the viewers tell us they want to see". Let them know what you want to see!

[mmacdonaldca]

forgot one example of male nudity on TV. If anyone knows the show Degrassi (in its many forms) that is one show that really gets into topics and subjects without shying away. An example, a main character lost a bet so to pay it off, he had to streak the cafeteria. Keep in mind, this show is for kids between 10-18 for the most part. Instead of doing the typical seeing the streaker take his shirt off and then a commercial...or even maybe seeing a head and a set of legs going through a crowd, this kid stripped off in a washroom and walked straight into the cafeteria, with his hat covering the more personal parts. Yes, he did not show frontal but the camera does follow him around, even as he gets caught by a teacher. Full rear shots.
This show was not censored and there was not out cry for the show to be removed. I am sure the producers did get some negative comments but unlike Ms. Janet's breast, no one seemed to care. They saw it for what it was, a kid doing a simple dare...just like in real life.

[Home Nudist]

Back to what is allowable...there are zones of time when certain content can not be shown (or heard) but for the most part it if makes sense to the story line and it is not over the top in the censores eyes, it can air. An example, the word "s**t" is often heard on prime time shows. The word "f**k" can be heard on the news when criminals are being taken away. (yes, I self-censored there). There is even a game show called "You Bet Your ***"

I find the standards and practices of a country to be interesting -- and a little absurd.

Here in the US, on broadcast TV, they will always BEEP out the aforementioned words from a movie. BUT, they will allow the taking of the Lord's Name in vain. I am no religious zealot, but it would seem to me that the latter could be more offensive to some people than the former.

It seems to show the direction our country is going: The public must be protected from hearing certain words (which, in my opinion are only "words") , but blaspheming the Almighty is perfectly acceptable speech in our living rooms.

[jennan32za]

Could the answer to this question be as simple as this, perhaps:

Men are more interested in seeing nudity in the media than women; thus, the nudity which makes it into the mainstream media is aimed at men, most of whom are not terribly interested in looking at other men.

Surely the number of guys' stuff magazines (like Maxim and FHM, all of which have reams and reams of scantily clad women in every edition) compared to similar magazines aimed at women (such as... um... anyone know a magazine?) tells us all we need to know here.

-d-

[MoonShadow]

Could the answer to this question be as simple as this, perhaps:

Men are more interested in seeing nudity in the media than women; thus, the nudity which makes it into the mainstream media is aimed at men, most of whom are not terribly interested in looking at other men.

Surely the number of guys' stuff magazines (like Maxim and FHM, all of which have reams and reams of scantily clad women in every edition) compared to similar magazines aimed at women (such as... um... anyone know a magazine?) tells us all we need to know here.

-d-


No, we are not that interested in look at the nudity in most magazines as it is mostly women. Few naked men in media ads in magazines. I suppose the media thinks all women love to see each other naked as this is what fills most magazines. I would love to see more naked men in magazines!!!!

[walter05]

I have a lot of good Canadian customers so I am in Canada a lot.

Standards there are lower.

However, there was an older Disney movie. In it, a boy runs away. While living in the wild, he ends up taking a swim in a stream. One shot is from high up, and his naked buttocks and crack are visible in the water.

I apologize for not remembering the name of the movie.

However, it seems that the view on showing a boy's behind was more liberal forty years ago. That was prior to the pedophelia and anti-child pornography focus.

Today in the U.S.A. even on cable, a minor's buttocks would be a risky thing to show. There would be a fear that it could be considered child pornograpy.

[Pete Knight]

Surely the number of guys' stuff magazines (like Maxim and FHM, all of which have reams and reams of scantily clad women in every edition) compared to similar magazines aimed at women (such as... um... anyone know a magazine?) tells us all we need to know here.

-d-
Blimey, here in Britain the girly magazines far outnumber the guys, but where as the guys mags have pictures, the girls tend to go more for the lurid stories of affairs and sexual misadventure. Mmmmm, that tells a lot about the difference between men and women doesn't it!

Not that I'm in the habit of buying girls magazines, but they do have their fair share of scantily clad Adonises, whenever I thumbed through one in the waiting room of my doctors surgery.

Pete Knight

Pete Knight

[mmacdonaldca]

walter05...I hope you didnt mean we up here in Canada have "lower standards". :) If you meant that we have less hangups about what we see on TV than that is very true. If you meant we just dont care who see what and when, I would have to say I do not agree. I would say we are just less uptight.

[walter05]

You are correct that was what I meant. My impression based on a lot of time spent in Canada, is that there are less hang ups about nudity on TV.

[Gunther Netzer]

I noticed that all but a few posters on this subject are from outside the UK. Over here, on TV certainly, there is far more dispaying of the male bum than the female's. I recall, off the top of my head, only once seeing a lady's bottom whereas the men on TV have theirs displayed so much more often. I'm not sure why there aren't more of the women's on TV, but only in situations where it is deemed necessary to a plotline

[NudePete]

I have a lot of good Canadian customers so I am in Canada a lot.

Standards there are lower...

You meant to say of course that standards here are better!

On a more serious note, I am proud to be able to say that our standards when it comes to violence definitely are better (higher/more strict in that case.)

[walter05]

I have seen war footage and/or footage from Africa on Canadian news reports that was far more graphic than would be allowed in the U.S.A.

Walter

[Fitz1980]

I noticed that all but a few posters on this subject are from outside the UK. Over here, on TV certainly, there is far more dispaying of the male bum than the female's. I recall, off the top of my head, only once seeing a lady's bottom whereas the men on TV have theirs displayed so much more often. I'm not sure why there aren't more of the women's on TV, but only in situations where it is deemed necessary to a plotline

Part of that is because culturally our society tends to see naked men as funny and naked women as sexy. Witness one of the funniest shows on TV "The Simpsons." Bart, Homer, Barney & Mr Burns have all appeared naked, usually several times on the show. Marge has once or twice and I don't think that Lisa ever has.

[FreeinNJ]

No, we are not that interested in look at the nudity in most magazines as it is mostly women. Few naked men in media ads in magazines. I suppose the media thinks all women love to see each other naked as this is what fills most magazines. I would love to see more naked men in magazines!!!!


I think it has to do with the "belief" that woman do not view nudity as men do. Men are seen as looking for it in the sexual nature. Women are are seen as better so they do use the penis to attract women like a pair or breasts.
I also believe it has to do with the society we live it, we are taught to cover ourselfs and hide our when someone else is naked. we here see past the sexual aspect of nudity and embrace it as a wonderful lifestyle.

[David77]

I think it has to do with the "belief" that woman do not view nudity as men do. Men are seen as looking for it in the sexual nature. Women are seen as better so they do use the penis to attract women like a pair or breasts.
.

I have read that women get their greatest kick from viewing the good shape of a man's rear end. A scientific test of a sampling of women would prove whether or not this is actually a fact.

Men in Brazil get their greatest pleasure from the sight of a woman's hips instead of the breasts.

[JoseO42]

I can remember one time in one show in which Archie Bunker has to change Gloria's baby who was a boy and on the show the audience did get to see the boy without a diaper. I remember that it was a big deal at the time because actual male genitalia was displayed on public access TV.

I think the other reason is that a penis can be seen as a sort of a weapon, similar to a rocket. It is seen as force-full, powerful, and used to make children, thus having a male spread his genes to the next generation.

You see this in animal where there is a competition with the males to be the Alpha Male.

I do not think society is ready yet to just think of it as a part of the human body that identifies gender.

[Kouak]

I will start off by saying I'm a guy, and I have IT. My views have a definite male slant. With that said, here goes.

I believe that most people don't care about a flaccid penis. It is non-threatening. Most people who live where it is taboo to show your genitalia will want to see one and may possibly giggle, oogle, react, and maybe get aroused by the sight of one. This, I believe, does not have anything to do with the penis but rather the violation of a taboo. This is akin to the "fly on the wall" scenario. I personally would love to know what really goes on behind closed doors during a secret meeting. Not because of what is said, but rather because I would be hearing stuff that I was not suppose to hear. The same goes with genitalia. If I'm not allowed to see a breast, I want to see one. If you tell me it is OK to see one and I see them all of the time, now I do not care. It is not taboo anymore. It lost its excitement and has become normal and boring.

Now an erect penis is a different story. We are animals first and foremost. As animals, we must survive and procreate. If we fail at one or the other, we go extinct--simple as that. I believe it is built into us, as animals, to want to mate. Males can even have erections when waking up from sleep. This is involuntary. Doctors call this an "early morning erection." (They can use this to help determine if male impotence is physical or mental. If you get one, you must be physically able to get an erection. This would imply that your impotence is more mental. The converse, not getting one, does not indicate anything.) I know my "early morning erections" are hard to ignore. I believe that this reminds the animal in us to get out there and procreate. This is not the scary part. This is "normal."

The scary part is how procreation usually happens. The male is usually on top. The female on the bottom is more helpless and are kind of pinned down. Females are controlled by the male. That can be scary to them to relinquish control and submit to the male. Some males believe this action is domination. This allows males who are less self-confident to boost their self-image by dominating females. Domination means more importance which makes them feel better. This may help explain why rapists have self-confidence issues.

Females cannot rape males. They can never be in control in this situation except with our societal rules "allowing" them to say no. Males still have the ultimate control since, generally being stronger, can ignore the "no" and proceed anyway forcing their dominance.

An erection indicates that a male is ready for procreation...not that he is going to procreate or even looking to procreate but could. I personally don't get an erection in the middle of the day for no reason. I get erections in the morning (early morning erections) and when I get "frisky." I believe that most males (if not all) get erections when they are frisky and want to procreate.

To summarize...usually...erection = frisky = procreate. This is not a big stretch of the imagination. But to tell the truth, males WILL get frisky throughout the day and get erections. If it was on purpose (and it usually is), no one else cares so cover it up. If it is accidental, cover it up so no one will think it was on purpose. That was my take on erections and why I think we should cover them up. Not because erections are bad per se but because they usually indicate what the male wants to do.

In addition to what you have posted here, maybe, it is biblical (now bear with me on this radical look-see - LOL). Back in the garden where Eve was tempted by the serpent to eat from the tree of life that the penis represents the serpent. Like the serpent who penatrates Eve's mind with temptation, men's penises which penetrate is a temptation.

It is my opinion that the bible has many stories to explain complicated things to simple, uneducated people. For example, if prophets were to talk about the big bang theory (if true), they would have been run out of town. A simple story about creation allows us to get past "how we got here" and onto the more important issues of not coveting your neighbor's goods, etc.

I never thought, until now, that the Tree of Life is analogous to procreation and the serpent could be analogous to a penis. Adam violates the apple by biting into it analogous to a male penetrating a female. Now it makes sense that the woman's punishment is to have birthing pains. It could be all about procreation.

Another is that the art world gave us both the nude male and female in all its beauty but then was transformed into nude beauty means nude female form rather than the nude beauty of both the female and male form.

Now, centuries later with the advertising world as it is - somehow the nude male form was dropped out of the picture altogether and anything representing nudity is the female form. Perhaps this was due that the initial world of advertising and fashion was male-dominated.

I don't think it was advertising that caused males to be covered. I think it was christianity that made nudity a bad thing. Remember when they "fixed" the pagans by introducing christianity, they "fixed" the pagans being naked and having sex all of the time. They could not turn around and promote nudism. At least that is what I was taught in church.

I think the fact that traditionally most producers of TV and movies were (and perhaps still are) male, would account for something. These men don't want to see other men......they want to see "naked babes"!

I think you hit the nail on the head on why a lot of things have male slants to them.

The penis is a powerful symbol.

I don't know when it began to be viewed so negatively but in the ancient world it was a powerful symbol of virility and fertility. A thing to be worshiped even a symbol of good luck in Roman times, the larger the penis the more good luck you had. I suppose it was the rise of Christianity and the negative views the church had on all things sexual.

Anyway, here's wishing you big penis.

And they say size does not matter!

I think the reason IT is feared is that exposed penises in all states are perceived as threatening and dangerous. In particular, the harder the penis, the more dangerous IT is considered to be. The harder penis = dangerous penis is as true with most nudists whose thoughts I have read as with body-fearing non- and anti- nudists.

I disagree that flaccid penises are threatening except to those who worry about erections so much that they are paranoid about all penises.

First of all, it has nearly nothing to do with Christianity. After all, Christ himself spent a great deal of time nude. Walked out of the tomb nude too. There is a lot of nudity in the Bible. It is PEOPLE that are the problem.

If christianity is OK with nudity then why do they have to convert the naked heathens?

I totally agree. In my opinion which is just that, not based on research or data; only life experience and obeservations; it seems that men are more comfortable with nudity than women. I base this opinion on postings on this board which appears to be predominantly male and related postings such as "reluctant spouse" concering social nudity. Additionally, in my own experience the number of males who frequent and participate in nude recreation at the beach far outnumber the females. Also growing up in the late 60's and early 70's it was accepted for boys to swim nude in school swim programs. That's just the way it was, it was not only accepted but required. Conversely, girls and women don't appear to be as participative in the nude recreation that men & boys do as previously mentioned. However, in society it is more acceptable seeing females appear totally nude in film and print while it is not as prevalent for males (although it's slowly changing). Could it be that along with nudity in film and print comes the idea of individuals portrayed this way as being objectified? If this is the case, men appearing totally nude in film and print may be associated with being objectified and with that less powerful. It's an interesting spin on male nudity especially considering that male nudes portrayed in greek and roman art were considered heroic. Quite a change over time.

I don't think males are more comfortable with nudity. Rather they want to procreate and being nude facilitates it. Remember males have less investment in procreation whereas females have the vast majority of the investment. Guys can walk away but females cannot. If nudity makes it easier to procreate, it is not hard to imagine why females might shy away from nudity--not because they are uncomfortable with nudity.

My wife and I were regulars for over a decade...every weekend, all year long...at the nude beach at San Onofre in S.Ca. In fact, we met there.

Each weekend we sat with the same group of 4-6 couples and this subject would come up sometimes. Since we were there all the time, we knew all the regulars...most of whom were couples.

Here's what we noticed. If you looked down the beach on a busy afternoon you would see guys standing to talk while their wives and girlfriends were sitting to talk and socialize. This made the guys FAR more obvious at first glance.

Guys stand around in small groups with their feet in the water with a cold beer, or maybe next to the vollyball courts watching the game, while their women were sitting just up the beach with their women friends.

So...if you were a newcomer walking into the nude beach area and scanning the crowd (which is frequently 500 or more people in the summer) your first "wide-angle" impression would be that there are a LOT more guys than girls.

Since we knew most everyone, when we would see a guy by himself we would know his wife was nearby, but a newcomer wouldn't see it the same way.

Of course, this wasn't true for the gay area, and if you count that then perhaps you're right. If you don't count the gays that go to their end of the beach, then San Onofre at the volleyball end is, by far, mostly couples and family's with kids.

You just don't see it initially because guys stand up to socialize more often and women, more often, sit in their beach chairs to socialize.

Also, we've noticed the same effect at Haulover Beach in Florida.

When I go to the beach, I don't see guys standing and gals sitting. Both are doing both. However I do see that people play frisbee, football, etc. with the same sex, and guys tend to play more than gals. So I do kind of agree that you will see guys up more than gals, but it is to play...not just standing talking.