What is objectionable about a nude male body?

[Gary Naturist]

A committee of local politicians is meeting to decide on rules to apply to city parks -- in particular, whether or not public nudity should be allowed.

You are invited to appear before this committee -- i.e. respond to this topic -- ONLY if you are opposed to public nudity being allowed in the park.

Please DO NOT respond if you are in favor, or to rebut something said by someone else. (We can start up another topic for this purpose.)

The Committee Chairperson describes a scenario to you: Let's say that there is a man off by himself in a public park, lying on his back, sunbathing nude.

He goes on to question you:

Why do you object to this man being nude? Be specific: it's not satisfactory to say that it's immodest, rude or disgusting -- you have to explain why.

Do you object simply because his genital area is visible? If so, what is objectionable: Is it his penis, his testicles, his pubic hair, all of the above?

If so, why are these body parts objectionable? Is it because of what the penis is used for: urination? sexual pleasure? reproduction?

But if none of the above is happening at the time, why is there a problem?

Is it because of what comes out of the penis: urine? semen?

Why then is it NOT OK to expose the genitals but it IS OK to expose the nose (mucuous secretions) or the mouth (sexual activity)?

Do you object simply because you were taught that the genital area is private and/or should not be exposed to just anyone? What do you think was the rationale behind this teaching?

If this is what you believe, do you think that it is appropriate to impose your beliefs on others? Why?

If so, and if others believe that fat people or black people should not be allowed to sunbathe in the park, is it appropriate that they should be allowed to impose their beliefs on others?

If not, what is the difference?

Do you have any other relevant comment to make?

Thank you for your participation.

Chairperson, Parks Rules Committee

[Gary Naturist]

A committee of local politicians is meeting to decide on rules to apply to city parks -- in particular, whether or not public nudity should be allowed.

You are invited to appear before this committee -- i.e. respond to this topic -- ONLY if you are opposed to public nudity being allowed in the park.

Please DO NOT respond if you are in favor, or to rebut something said by someone else. (We can start up another topic for this purpose.)

The Committee Chairperson describes a scenario to you: Let's say that there is a man off by himself in a public park, lying on his back, sunbathing nude.

He goes on to question you:

Why do you object to this man being nude? Be specific: it's not satisfactory to say that it's immodest, rude or disgusting -- you have to explain why.

Do you object simply because his genital area is visible? If so, what is objectionable: Is it his penis, his testicles, his pubic hair, all of the above?

If so, why are these body parts objectionable? Is it because of what the penis is used for: urination? sexual pleasure? reproduction?

But if none of the above is happening at the time, why is there a problem?

Is it because of what comes out of the penis: urine? semen?

Why then is it NOT OK to expose the genitals but it IS OK to expose the nose (mucuous secretions) or the mouth (sexual activity)?

Do you object simply because you were taught that the genital area is private and/or should not be exposed to just anyone? What do you think was the rationale behind this teaching?

If this is what you believe, do you think that it is appropriate to impose your beliefs on others? Why?

If so, and if others believe that fat people or black people should not be allowed to sunbathe in the park, is it appropriate that they should be allowed to impose their beliefs on others?

If not, what is the difference?

Do you have any other relevant comment to make?

Thank you for your participation.

Chairperson, Parks Rules Committee

[MaxUK]

Why is it NOT OK for a couple to have sex in the middle of a park but it is OK to hold hands - because that is what society, at this point in time, deems acceptable. Both activities are not directly harmful to anyone else but one is too far beyond the line in the view of the vast majority, so it's not allowed. Same with nudity being allowed anywhere in any public park - too far beyond the norm to be accepted by more than a small minority.

And the views of the vast majority should rightly prevail (but always be challenged by sensible and rational alternative ideas that mean the 'norm' is always in flux, to a certain extent) - otherwise anarchy would reign and that is plainly absurd.

Max

[Fresh Air]

It would be nice if it was as easy as what one person wants, but it is not. In this country rules are made not only for ourselves, but for others. The freedoms of others are what is to be considered.

In general it is easier for a person to cover up than for another to ignore a nude person. I think this is the main reason it is illegal.

It is pretty clear that in correct places it is ok to be "nude". Art classes and exhibits, gym locker rooms, restrooms, etc. Allowing nudity (or anything) beyond it's confines can often open a can of worms that can't be shut again. It is best to proceed with conservative caution in many regards.

Fresh Air

[nudeM]

I kind of see where Gary Naturist is going with this. Seems it is more acceptable to view the nude female body than it is to view a nude male body. Female nudes are openly shown on magazine and television advertisements, wheras the nude male body is more "protected". Television is coming around though. I have seen lately that there are nude males depicted on several new shows.

Even though I have seen it only one time, but there was a commercial that showed a nude male, clearly evident, walking from the bathroom to the living room without any clothing. He just jumped on the couch and started to watch T.V. That's when the commercial ended. I believe it was some sort of a male fragrance.

Just my two and a half cents worth.

[FLslimguy]

It is generally assumed that a female nude (work of art) is more acceptable to the general public than a male nude. Male genitalia seem to cause a problem. Is it because MEN...do not want their daughters/wives/girlfriends/mothers exposed to the genitalia of other men? Is it perceived as a gay or perverse activity for a male to have them exposed? Is that why some clubs don't allow single men in? The clubs can't disallow fat people in because most of the club would disappear. So that makes being out of shape ok...but an in-shape single male gets booted. Because of his assumed perversion... all in the name of sexual balance.

Why are nude pre-pubescent children accepted in public, but as soon as they reach puberty, they must be clothed or be assumed to be perverted? Gary is opening a lot of deep thought questions that I would find very interesting to have discussed too.

An interesting personal note: As an artist, I find that the female nudes that I draw or paint are acceptable anywhere. People enjoy looking at them. They sell at art shows. But for some interesting reason, a male nude is not as accepted. Perceptions of a "gay" work of art come up. Children shouldn't see them because they are immediately considered more sexual in content.

We may never resolve male nudity to a point where it is as accepted as female nudity, but I WILL keep painting the nude male as I see fit.

Hmmm? ...Very interesting topic...and great responses so far...really gets you thinking...My thoughts... Males and females naked in art or in a park or beach etc. enjoying Naturism should not be objectionable ...whether single or in a group...but adding sex to the situation is another story and becomes an erotic situation which could be very uncomfortable because of all the primitive feelings that could be stirred up in the viewer and especially in single young males that could lead to actions unaceptable in our modern world...and yes there are some(gawkers ) who would find just the naked person or persons without sex.. erotic and that is why we are back to simple nudity being outlawed...Odb /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

[florida-david]

i think the naked body (male or female) seen in art or in the park sunbathing is seen by most of society as a sexual body, awaiting sex. society thinks "why else would there be nudity except for sex"?? sad. the other thing is that society is brainwashed to think that men are a tricky, no-good gender. it should be unacceptable for people to believe that 'boys-will-be-boys' crap. that is society programming at a young age that men are bad. so, since people are trained to see naked bodies in a sexual connotation and men are out to do no-good, a naked man in the park is surely up to no-good. i think men suffer from stupid guilt - a man seeing another naked man can find the other man's body attractive but he is also thinking he must be having homosexual thoughts as he is admiring the other nude man. if the man could simply see a body as a non-sexual entity, he could appreciate the male body as a work of art. for women seeing the naked male body in art (picture, print, sculpture, etc), their reaction is one of appreciation for its beauty; but if the same man was to be naked in the park, than women recall their training that boys are up to no-good and feel the naked man must be out for sexual activity and they assume he is perverted. so for women, i believe they can appreciate a nude male in art, but in the real world, that same body is seen as a pervert.

i can appreciate males and females as the works of art that they are, and do not immediately see naked people as perverts (depending upon their actions). i would be a little apprehensive if there was an unknown naked man walking down my street in the middle of the day. i, as well as the rest of us, have been programmed to consider this naked man as a threat, whereas if it was a naked woman walking down the street, i would not feel as threatened. it also depends on the action of the people walking naked down my steet, if it was a group jogging naked by, it would be less intimidating, but if it was an individual (male or female) sneaking around in the dark, i would be suspicious of either gender.

Florida David ...I think you hit the nail on the head...with your male "stupid guilt" theory Odb

[Rex]

It has been mentioned before, on this forum, that there are a number of "nude in public" sites, featuring nude girls nonchalantly walking around parks, streets etc. Casual passers-by generally appear to be approving, amused, or just not particularly interested.
One forum poster described this as generally harmless exibitionism, or pranksterism, and I would agree with this comment.
A particularly good example is in a recent segment, filmed in Switzerland, showing "Lenka P" walking past a line of older men and women, most of whom were obviously highly amused.
Most of these nude occasions seem to be filmed in central or Eastern Europe, where, in at least some places, both men and women can be nude in parks, or at lakes, which have no particular "clothes-optional status.
It may be significant that there are not, to my knowledge, any similar sites featuring men. It may be just a commercial decision, on the assumption that nude men would not attract sufficient paying viewers. [Anyone can have a free preview.]
I think more likely, however, is that, even in these more enlightened places, nude women are perceived as harmless, whereas a nude [for no apparent purpose] man is seen as potentially threatening.

[MikeJB]

It has been mentioned before, on this forum, that there are a number of "nude in public" sites, featuring nude girls nonchalantly walking around parks, streets etc. Casual passers-by generally appear to be approving, amused, or just not particularly interested.
One forum poster described this as generally harmless exibitionism, or pranksterism, and I would agree with this comment.
A particularly good example is in a recent segment, filmed in Switzerland, showing "Lenka P" walking past a line of older men and women, most of whom were obviously highly amused.
Most of these nude occasions seem to be filmed in central or Eastern Europe, where, in at least some places, both men and women can be nude in parks, or at lakes, which have no particular "clothes-optional status.
It may be significant that there are not, to my knowledge, any similar sites featuring men. It may be just a commercial decision, on the assumption that nude men would not attract sufficient paying viewers. [Anyone can have a free preview.]
I think more likely, however, is that, even in these more enlightened places, nude women are perceived as harmless, whereas a nude [for no apparent purpose] man is seen as potentially threatening.
-------------------------------------------------

These nude in public sites seem to be exhibitionist related for two reasons

a) They are IN the sex/exhibitionist areas of most sites/top10 lists, etc

b) Most of these people are filmed in areas where THEY are the only ones nude and their actions are usually intended to get attention and show the fact that they are the only ones nude there and alot of times if these were real places with people nude, more people would be nude there.

This just seems to be a stunt if you put all the facts together. A nude female in an all clothed area normally wouldnt be bad *considering it is accepted there* because you dont need to have a certain # of nude people present to make it ok because its an individual issue. Most people if nude in public would just be going about their business and not doing anything that would be suggestive or imply overtly that they are naked and most wouldnt think about it or have this be the objective of their actions in public. Also if this were something ok then it would be in a more nudist setting and not purposely somewhere where they are the only nudist and thus more likely to draw attention especially because this is an area with alot of people present and also besides the legal issue, most people wouldnt expect nudity to be there besides knowing its legal there and maybe expecting the occasional nudist there. Topfreedom is legal in NY but most dont expect to see a topless female walk by them on a busy street although she would be well within her rights to. I just think there is a difference between these Public nudity sites and actual nudity in say a park or secluded area.

[MikeJB]

I think the idea of nudity being outside the norms of society in public and sex being outside is something quite different, even though they both would not be expected and probably not accepted in public right now. Sex though is an intimate thing and in most any place in public just wouldnt be respectful or practical to do it and there are just too many issues and problems associated with it. Whereas nudity is something more simple, practical and something society overall thinks is more normal and doesnt have alot of negative aspects of it per se. So I think itd be easier to be nude in a park or beach than it would to have sex at that park or beach. I think that you could allow nudity and still respect the majority's feelings and think of others, which most nudists would do through being polite and respectful and considerate of others and also using some basic common sense about how when and where to be naked so that you dont offend or shock anyone but still can nude and either not run into people or not have an issue if you do. I think my other posts imply this point more or less than this one does. Just my 2 cents.

[Rex]

Yes, Mike, it is a "stunt" and they are "intended to get attention", but they are not generally doing anything any different to what the clothed people are doing.
They're just being nude in public, and that is exactly what many forum posters have repeatedly said they would love to be able to do.
They are also, in an amusing and non-threatening way, educating and breaking down barriers.
On the other hand, a nude woman, on a recognised nude beach, behaving like everyone else, is not making a public statement of any kind.

[Jochanaan]

And let's not forget the power of simple conditioning. The public is conditioned by art appreciation classes and the presence of Playboy etc. to accept naked women in various contexts, at least if they are young and glamorous, but there are significantly fewer venues, apart from hardcore or homosexual pornography, that show naked men. Fortunately that has changed in the fine arts (it didn't need to change among nudists/naturists), but the contrary messages are so powerful in society at large that this change hasn't reached the non-artistic, textile public yet. (Hooray for Spencer Tunick!)