"People see a naked woman and they smile," he said. "They see a penis and they freak out."
This is a quote from a photographer who is snapping pictures of nude models around NYC (caution, nude model at the link):
Apparently, it's harder to photograph naked men in public to be included in this "free show":
I am going to play a little naive here and ask you, dear readers, why you think this is so?
A strip club isn't the only place in town you can see a pole dance -- amazed passengers on an L train watched in awe as a naked young woman competed with straphangers for space on a pole.
The performance by actress Jocelyn Saldana, 19, lasted just 30 seconds, and some of the passengers probably thought they were hallucinating or dreaming.
Most were blasé. But one woman started screaming and an elderly man next to her got the shakes.
That free show in mid-June -- as well as similar ones from Times Square to Chinatown -- were the creation of photographer Zach Hyman, 22, whose portraits are never under-exposed.
Apparently, it's harder to photograph naked men in public to be included in this "free show":
Alex Reisner, a 20-year-old Columbia student, had a very appreciative audience when she disrobed in Chinatown.
When Hyman snapped her jumping in the air in the middle of the street, the crowd burst into applause.
"There was so much adrenaline," she said. "I was bouncing around for the rest of the day. I told him I want to pose nude every weekend."
Hyman noted that "photographing females in public is easier than males.
"People see a naked woman and they smile," he said. "They see a penis and they freak out."
I am going to play a little naive here and ask you, dear readers, why you think this is so?
Labels: double standards
posted by Helen at 3:56 PM
75 Comments:
Women have been depicted in art for hundreds of years nude or semi-nude. We are used to it. Men not so much. It was mostly battles and heroic poses for men not skin. For women beauty is celebrated, for men, martial qualities.
Well, I think we men only tolerate that when it comes to peeing in urinals or bathing in public showers like in gyms. Other than that, it's frowned upon as something homosexual.
Personally, somehow the naked body of a woman is easier on the eyes (more beautiful? it's definitely more acceptable on movies, just how many full, frontal, male nudes does one know on films compared to female nudes?) than the naked body of a man, which is "nastier".
"David", anyone? How about the Sistine Chapel?
It's only been in the last couple of centuries that this ridiculous double standard has existed.
Wasn't there a Seinfeld episode that explained this? Yep, it was "The Apology" which I found after some Binging (I don't Google anymore).
Elaine said it best . . .
"The female body is a work of art. The male body is utilitarian. It's for gettin' around. It's like a Jeep."
This isn't really a difficult question, is it? After decades of demonization of male sexuality by the feminist movement, a penis is considered practically an assault weapon. It's a rape waiting to happen.
Yeah utilitarian. Like a Jeep. Until you want that body to save your ass. Then....
The psychological effects on an unmarried woman when she sees a pee-pee have been well documented.
Hysteria, loss of contact with reality and nymphomania are only the start.
Have a little compassion and understanding for women here, guys.
If you recall, Paula Jones got a settlement of around $750,000 after she saw the gubernatorial wiener for a few seconds.
A man who saw a woman's vagina for a few seconds would get somewhere between zero and nothing.
Just to put this in perspective: Paula got more than military vets with severe injuries get in a lot of cases. If you think about it, society thinks that Paula had far more trauma. Is that right?
Paula got far more than a man would get from worker's comp if he had a finger cut off in a buzz saw at work. Far, far more.
Is her trauma really worse? Would you rather see a wiener for a few seconds or have your finger cut off?
Society is really screwed up with this ultimate catering to women.
"After decades of demonization of male sexuality by the feminist movement, a penis is considered practically an assault weapon. It's a rape waiting to happen."
This isn't solely the view of the feminist movement. Look at history, and look at some other cultures today. Men themselves have held, and in many cultures still hold, the viewpoint that other men's sexuality is potentially dangerous to their womenfolk. Meaning that their womenfolk need to be kept in enclosed places, or not go in public unescorted, or not be with a man alone. The potential danger of the penis isn't an idea that originated in the recent feminist movement of the past few decades.
Also literature and art are full of comparisons between the male sexual organ and weaponry, valor, virility - often proud and prominent qualities :) but undoubtedly aggressive ones.
interesting question. men certainly don`t like the exhihibition of another guy`s penis, whether it be in public or in a movie.
we just don`t like the comparison...or the thought that our girl might see something more appealing.
women don`t like the comparisons either regarding breasts or flat bikini stomachs etc....
recent, more liberal attitudes, ask that men and women bury thier insecurities about whether they will measure up and tolerate more nudity in the media.
there is going to be a test of whether the penis will be accepted in movies shortly i would well imagine. it is one of the few taboos left in mainstream movies for that must-see shock effect.
in europe there is less of a sensitivity toward full male nudity now...and while the world hasn`t stopped for them there, i should imagine the general male population would much prefer not to have to stare at the last turkey in the shop.....
There are two reasons a penis would be out, apart from the vagaries of exhibitionism and photographers. So if a fluid cascade is not in evidence, there's one other use and in public that's usually construed as a threat.
Men are there to work for women. If their penis is hanging out, (1) they aren't working as they should to pay their child support and alimony and (2) the only reason it is hanging out is that they are probably going to rape a woman.
Think of Freud.
Internal v. External genitalia.
Trey
Another fairly useless comment from TwinkieMink.
I'm just fascinated.
You better get back to "doing God's work" and also evaluating statistical analyses.
"Give me the raw numbers," cries TMink in a fit of pique that his full intelligence is not acknowledged.
Tether, you are a toad. And a dim witted one at that.
It is the utmost in foolishness to try to insult a psychologist regarding their intelligence.
Unlike you, I know my IQ. I know it over many tests over many years. And unlike you, none of these tests were taken on the internet.
But please go on, I enjoy you looking like a fool.
Trey
This comment has been removed by the author.
"It is the utmost in foolishness to try to insult a psychologist regarding their intelligence."
-------------------
It almost sounds like psychologists are kind of Super-Heroes with super knowledge or something.
Someone has done and gone and insulted a psychologist with regard to his intelligence. And now vengeance will be yours with your superior knowledge of IQ testing and other important stuff that regular Joes don't know anything about. I have a feeling that some other psychologists here are just cringing at your words.
To paraphrase "Dieter" from very old Saturday Night Live episodes: "I grow weary of you".
If you want to know why people freak out when they see a penis, just take one look at....
Never mind.
"-M-e-n- -t-h-e-m-s-e-l-v-e-s- Adults in general, women included, have held, and in many cultures still hold, the -v-i-e-w-p-o-i-n-t- conclusion based upon evidence that -m-e-n-'-s- -s-e-x-u-a-l-i-t-y- trusting women's moral and ethical integrity is potentially dangerous to -t-h-e-i-r- -w-o-m-e-n-f-o-l-k- reliably establishing children's paternity, which is vital for creating the widespread benefits that result from involved fathers. Meaning that their womenfolk need to be kept in enclosed places, or not go in public unescorted, or not be with a man alone."
Fixed that for ya.
"If you want to know why people freak out when they see a penis, just take one look at...."
------------
There is a subset of women who see sexual interaction as their means of getting money.
But there is another subset of women who actually like sex in and of itself. They actually like penises. They are usually not the ones who are battle-hardened by having to fake interest in sex until the target gives them a legally enforceable hook.
But enough of my romantic-type talk.
It's not a fair world out there. One NFL player shoots himself in the leg, gets two years in the pen, another player runs over and kills a man while drunk and gets 30 days. Go figure!
A naked female in public "needs help", while a naked male in the same public setting is a "pervert".
The art of the ancient Greeks and Romans was filled with naked men. Female figures were usually robed.
We've done the reverse in this society.
It's interesting to speculate on what this means. The status of women was much lower in ancient Greek society than in our own society, and they went out of their way to avoid depicting the female form in the nude. Now, we show it everywhere--even when we don't show it full frontal, we still show it all the time.
Indeed, it's noticeable that if you pick up men's magazines, they're often filled with ads that include scantily clad women--but if you read a lot of women's magazines, they're filled with EVEN MORE pictures of nude and semi-nude women.
Make of it what you will, but I don't buy for a second that "objectification" of the female form has much to do with "degradation" of women.
Tether --
"Another fairly useless comment from TwinkieMink."
As opposed to yours, which are utterly useless?
"Fixed that for ya."
Fixed what exactly? I was responding to another commenter's assertion that it's feminists who've brought about the viewpoint of "threatening male sexuality" when men themselves hold this viewpoint - it's not one confined to women or to feminists alone.
In regards to children's paternity, if you think the sole reason for keeping women enclosed, guarded, etc. is because of the potential danger of trusting "women's moral and ethical integrity" you're really only looking at one side of the issue. It's both women AND men who aren't trusted. Hence the harsh penalties for men who try to move in on another man's "genetic/reproductive territory", so to speak; and also the harsh penalties for women who have sex with those men, either because they lured the men, allowed themselves to be wooed, or were raped (in certain cultures even today raped women and girls will be punished severely).
Also, if you're going by evolutionary arguments, another strategy to the paternity issue for men has been to sleep with multiple women, so that even if they're not always sure of each child's paternity, they increase the odds that they'll have at least one kid; evolutionarily, given that they've got to bear the child for 9 months and use their body's resources to this end, women have to be more choosy. And who knows, this might contribute to the perception that men in general are going to go after sex more often, wherever they can find it - so if they're walking around naked on the subway, is that like a signal of impending - and indiscriminate! – sexual conquest? (being a little facetious here, I know...)
Anyway, both male and female sexuality has been seen as potentially dangerous and disruptive, but generally in different ways. For men, it's generally the potential element of coercion and aggression (because of greater physical strength); also men have felt threatened by other men with better material means for seducing women. For women, the dangerous element of their sexuality largely is considered to be the way they can "make a man lose his senses" and lose control to his desire/appetities - the element of seduction, of not thinking straight, and the potential for manipulation that's possible in this.
I also remember reading some time ago about a prominent imam in Australia criticized for responding to a gang-rape by comparing the female victim to a piece of meat and the men to wild animals (with his point being that if the meat had been kept in the fridge instead of dangled out, it would've been spared getting torn apart and eaten by animals, who're just following their instincts after all). Neither the men nor the woman were spoken of in more human terms, with morality, ethics, free will, brains, etc. Just, either you're meat or you're a beast. There are echoes of these sentiments in our culture. Naked woman = meat, of different qualities, arousing the appetites. Naked man = aggression in some form, something unrestrained, wild.
"Fixed what exactly?"
Your EEEEERRRRROOOOORRRRRSSSSSS.
"I was responding to another commenter's assertion that it's feminists who've brought about the viewpoint of 'threatening male sexuality' when men themselves hold this viewpoint - it's not one confined to women or to feminists alone."
And you appear to believe that those two are mutually incompatible with each other. They're not.
Male sexuality isn't what used to be considered threatening. Inappropriate male violence is what used to be considered threatening. And the fact that men now hold that viewpoint serves more to support the proposition that feminists caused a change in common ideation.
"In regards to children's paternity, if you think the sole reason for keeping women enclosed, guarded, etc. is because of the potential danger of trusting 'women's moral and ethical integrity' you're really only looking at one side of the issue."
No more than you did in your original statement. . .which one-sidedness was, in fact, one of the things I was pointing it out through correction.
So thank you for shooting yourself in the foot with that, there. It was entertaining. I lol'd. No, you can keep it; I'm done with it now. You did your own credibility more harm with it than I could ever hope to have. No, really, I want you to have it. I can hardly wait to see you shoot yourself in the other foot with it. Preferably while it's in your mouth.
"It's both women AND men who aren't trusted."
BANG! Hey, thanks for not making me wait long. I really appreciate it.
You might want to take your finger off that trigger at this point, though.
"Anyway, both male and female sexuality has been seen as potentially dangerous and disruptive, but generally in different ways. For men, it's generally the potential element of coercion and aggression (because of greater physical strength);"
No; it's because of the potential for abuse of the community's assignment of responsibility for appropriate violence to men, which in turn is because of men's greater disposability. The primary purpose of restrictive gender roles is maintaining the replacement rate of the community's population.
"also men have felt threatened by other men with better material means for seducing women."
Which tacitly but inherently serves more to support my original counterbalancing point than otherwise.
"For women, the dangerous element of their sexuality largely is considered to be the way they can 'make a man lose his senses' and lose control to his desire/appetities - the element of seduction, of not thinking straight, and the potential for manipulation that's possible in this."
No; that's properly considered the case for both genders.
"I also remember reading some time ago about a prominent imam in Australia criticized for responding to a gang-rape by comparing the female victim to a piece of meat and the men to wild animals (with his point being that if the meat had been kept in the fridge instead of dangled out, it would've been spared getting torn apart and eaten by animals, who're just following their instincts after all). Neither the men nor the woman were spoken of in more human terms, with morality, ethics, free will, brains, etc. Just, either you're meat or you're a beast."
Oh, good. So you CAN reason correctly.
"There are echoes of these sentiments in our culture. Naked woman = meat, of different qualities, arousing the appetites. Naked man = aggression in some form, something unrestrained, wild."
Yes, and if your original comment had been that objective and balanced, I wouldn't have schooled you so hard. Keep it in mind for next time.
I think its more because men are visual creatures and women are not. Its why female bodies are designed, through evolution, to attract the male's attention through visual cues.
I don't know. Can't say that I have ever had much interest in seeing naked men in art or otherwise.
but if you read a lot of women's magazines, they're filled with EVEN MORE pictures of nude and semi-nude women.
Men want to see women, women only want to see themselves. Narcissism?
"Men want to see women, women only want to see themselves. Narcissism?"
-------
Their bodies are also their money-makers for lots of women. If you're cute (Heather Mills is an example) you can get far more money than most men make.
From that point of view, it then becomes obvious that you'd want to be on top of your game - and get suggestions.
Whatever. But the observation by the young photographer is about spot on.
"it's a dick! Haul ass!"
With women, it still has to do with beauty. Imagine the spot a Roseanne Bar type were standing on were she the one to disrobe. The crowd would disperse in a circular mode as if releasing a drop of dish soap in the middle of an oil slick.
The very thought of seeing someone write their name in the snow...on the sidewalk...
The horror!
The horror!
MB wrote: "It almost sounds like psychologists are kind of Super-Heroes with super knowledge or something."
Only to you.
The great people who frequent this board understand that when someone has taken multiple graduate level courses about a subject and done several practicums and given hundreds of those particular tests you develop proficiency. Most of the other posters have areas of proficiency and expertise that they thankfully share.
They would further understand that people do not have expertise in areas where they lack such training. I would not critique your statements about calculus, because I have basis in training or practice to do so. But then, I am funny that way, and not so emotionally scarred as frequently lose my composure.
Only you and tether are so threatened as to misunderstand such a straightforward and logical statement, and to then lose it for all to read.
I would have some sympathy for you and your lack of understanding were you not such an obnoxious ass. Frankly, I still do. But I am funny that way.
Trey
Achxiom wrote: "Male sexuality isn't what used to be considered threatening. Inappropriate male violence is what used to be considered threatening. And the fact that men now hold that viewpoint serves more to support the proposition that feminists caused a change in common ideation."
Good point. The men haters on the feminists have equated men with sexual violence. I guess it was the type who wrote that anyone with a penis should be considered guilty of rape until proven otherwise.
So now, some react to a penis as if it were a machine gun.
Trey
I can't really say if I'd be offended at seeing naked male art. It all depends. I don't know who this art guy is. And for that matter, why is he always naked?
Most of the hetero women I know openly agree with most men that the female body is more pleasing on the eyes and would prefer to see nude women in art then nude men.
Or at least that's what they say...
i would imagine there are a woman or two who are comfortable with the idea, the image, and a relationship with a man who has a penis and the attendant behaviours which accompany that relationship.
i happen to have a great relationship with one of those women and i intend to continue to explore this, in some ways endangered and outmoded, form of expression and way of experiencing my social space.
behind closed doors.
i hope that this comment has in no way threatened or undermined the choices of others, and further more i hope that my statements are not taken to mean that my choice in this matter is in any way superior to thiers.
my hope is that people will continue to find expressions of pleasure as they see fit.
as long as they don`t ask me to watch or display thier "art" in places where i or my children find themselves.....
.....and i promise not to open the door where they`ve displayed thier work or behaviour.
i`m a bit old-fashioned that way.
and regarding tminks comment regarding internal vs. external genitalia....
...precisely.
I showed this article to a male friend who has a couple of kids (10 year old girl; 7 year old boy). We talked about a hypothetical situation - he's on the subway car with his kids, a nude model walks in. What would make him feel more uncomfortable for his kids to be around - a live female nude model or male nude model? (assuming that neither model is doing overtly sexual things like fondling themselves or rubbing up against passengers - but just standing around or posing).
He said he'd cover his kids eyes in both cases, and that public nudity statutes are there for a reason. And if he wasn't with his kids? If they were older and allowed on the subway by themselves, or going as part of a school trip? He thought about it, then stuck to his reply on being equally upset/perturbed. (And we're talking about live figures - when it comes to art, he doesn't care if his kids see the statue of David or a female nude sculpture for instance).
I'm curious about people's more personal reactions, if they had a kid riding in that subway car. Again, assuming both models are not coming into contact with any passengers or being overtly sexual. Just celebrating their bodies and posing. What would your reactions be - depending on the model's gender, the child's age and gender?
my boys are ten and thirteen and my though would be that where is the community standard that would allow such displays in a public place...
it is not that my children should or would be uncomfortable about the naked human form, it is the social context and what other behaviours are allowed, advocated and/or tolerated it that space.
it is common now for families with young children to go to toronto on a summers afternoon to see gays and lesbians perform sex acts in public.
and all because it`s called gay pride.
i`m not sure exactly when it was that we, as a culture, decided to slip the bounds of decency, but here we are.
the toronto city council defends the parade as a vast boost to the local economy.
so we can abuse our children as long as revenues are up.
check.
The Roman Rape of the Sabine Women! It goes down hill from there...
They really do that in public in Toronto, alistair?
To do it is perverted. To bring your kids to watch, more so. It should be a criminal offense, not a thing of pride.
I suppose if the expos were hetero, arersts would be made.
Naked women are presumed to be art.
Naked men are presumed to be rapists.
Zak, haven't you ever heard of an "Art Exhibition?"
My view is that the problem is the sexual aggression inherent in the uncovered male penis. I would suggest that it is worrisome for both sexes.
In regards to children's paternity, if you think the sole reason for keeping women enclosed, guarded, etc. is because of the potential danger of trusting "women's moral and ethical integrity" you're really only looking at one side of the issue. It's both women AND men who aren't trusted. Hence the harsh penalties for men who try to move in on another man's "genetic/reproductive territory", so to speak; and also the harsh penalties for women who have sex with those men, either because they lured the men, allowed themselves to be wooed, or were raped (in certain cultures even today raped women and girls will be punished severely).
It is not the paternity, per se, but rather, that the husband is helping to raise the kid, and as a result, it better well be his. He (almost always) only has a finite amount of resources available that he can use to raise kids, and the guys who spend it on raising other guys' kids can't be spending it on their own.
This is part of the dynamic that results from the extremely long time it takes us to mature. Human children turn out better when they have two parents spending their resources raising them, and that ultimately provides a genetic/ evolutionary advantage to such. This is very different from our closest genetic relative, the other two chimp species, where maturity is much shorter and a mother's care is sufficient.
But, that means that for raising kids, the optimum for humans is mated pairs. The problem is that most often, the women end up mated with beta males, since there aren't (and can't be) enough alpha males to go around. The alphas have the best genes, and if raising kids were not an issue, then the women would tend to use their sperm (which is what happens with the other chimp species).
So, how does this work out? Some females cheat to get better genes for their offspring, and the guys are happy to oblige, since the other guys are going to have to raise them (this is a genetic bonus for the guys who are cheating over and above their regular family).
It is interesting that we, as a species, and especially our females, have evolved a number of biological traits that are closely tied to this. One is hidden ovulation. Without that, women would have a harder time keeping their men around. Another is that sexual preferences change during many women's cycles, preferring alpha males near ovulation, and their beta mates the rest of the time.
And, coming full circle, this is a good part of why cheating is punished so strenuously - the guy who is cheated upon ends up spending his resources over a number of years raising someone else's kid(s).
I should add that this worked a lot more smoothly when the universe of males was typically fairly homogeneous, so that it often wasn't all that obvious which kids were not sired by their legal fathers.
If people honestly see a naked woman and simply smile, I can only guess at the cause or causes, but. Regardless of what they think of naked men. But I have some thoughts on that too.
This first, rather than a cause, it probably means we have or are becoming secular and perhaps on into pagan. With advertising of naked or near naked women for everything from beer to even women's stuff, go figure. Naked women seem to equal good head (on beer) to hot and wet (saunas). We seem controlled by it, as a people.
Next, of course men will be vilified, clothes on or clothes off, we are "wrong". Then again, since it is more men who are activated by visuals, I think the idea of naked men goes against the grain of the majority of those who are sensitive to it. I personally see it is gay or at least lame. If a guy can be in good enough shape to pose nude, and then is doing so, he is considered possibly gay, probably a laggard (read no job), and probably a bad prospect if I have a daughter (arrogant, into himself only, and, as I said, a laggard... those muscles don't just grow by themselves, couldn't have time to work... unless he is worse, a drug user).
Though, and in truth, I would be offended to see a young woman performing nude. I would just as likely call the police if I too, am much more likely to wait until they come if it is a nude woman as opposed to a nude man. Just to make sure, you know. Oh well, perfection I do not have.
Not all cultures have a problem with the penis. Japanese culture has the big celebration including parades. It is done with a symbol, however, not so much the real thing.
Maybe our own culture ends up drilling things in the sub conscious (ha!) that affects us all more than we realize. Maybe it has been there a long time, and has been festering until we are where we are. The things shared between consenting adults of opposite sex, and especially married couples over the years, are a major part of the relationship. If that goes haywire for some reason, via infidelity, or if that part of the relationship fizzles out altogether for whatever reason, so goes the relationship.
Heck, look at the difference between the "missionary position", and the Kama Sutra. You have to admit, if you are in a healthy relationship where both partners enjoy "all things marital", the Kama Sutra, page by page, is a total blast. Obviously, one culture is a bit more uptight about sexuality than some others.
Acts of homo or hetero sexuality don't belong on public display though, even in Toronto. Get a room.
While I would like to think I pack an assault weapon in my pants, there is actually nothing more hilarious and non threatening than watching a man do an activity with a flaccid penis, See "Sideways" or watch some random playboy tv show when they are showing nudists do something (like playing vollyball), all the men are fit to extremely athletic, but still look silly with their junk flopping about.
also, the movie Eastern Promises, the naked steam room fight was hilarious, I couldnt take it serious at all.
Jesus. Seriously? Have you all become so infected with political and sexual correctness that you can't see plain facts? (that's a rhetorical question--of course, you have.)
When Mary Kay Laturneau (sp?) was banging her boy toy (still is, actually--didn't they just get married?), most people were saying stupid things like, if this were a male schoolteacher, we'd fry him, so let's fry her.
Anyone who used to be a teenage boy remember Van Halen's "Hot for Teacher"?
We live in an amazing age of full acceptance of slutty little Miley Cyrus and Bratz and hooking up while being far more puritanical and stupid about sex than our parents. Christ.
The typical spontaneous public display of male sexuality is driven by perversion and scary aggression. The typical spontaneous public display of female sexuality is driven by perversion and invitation.
13 year old girls need to be protected more than 13 year old boys.
Men say "show me your tits!" to women they don't know a lot more often than women say "show me your dick!" to anyone.
Men rape women a lot more than women rape men. If women were physically stronger than men, I expect the rape rate would go way down.
Women are different from men.
Any of this registering?
Nope. None of it. I have no idea what it is that you are trying to get across. Please, come right out with these plain facts.
What's this got to do with male nudity exactly? Were the ancient Greeks and Romans, who were very fond of statues and paintings of nude men, unaware that young girls are more vulnerable than young boys? Renaissance art was filled with nudes of both men and women. Were they unaware that men and women are different?
There has been a definitive shift toward revulsion of the male form. Indeed, the people here who are just plain saying the male form is unbeautiful seem blissfully unaware that throughout the history of Western culture the male form, nude or clothed, was considered extremely beautiful--at least, in idealized form.
It is a definitive, and undeniable, SHIFT IN PERCEPTION, when we suggest that the male form is unbeautiful, and that male nudity is inherently sexual and aggressive.
"Art Exhibition"? That Art dudes got a funny last name. No wonder he's always running around nakid.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I think the male form is very nice. I like a nice cut man. You can show me pictures of a good looking naked guy any time. Women....not so much.
br, having never actually been to the parade i cannot say with absolute certianty that sex acts are performed, and i would imagine most acts would only be simulated in any regard, but reports from witnesses say that acts were performed publically.
not that it matters though. the simulation it`s self is enough.
as someone above said...get a room.
http://tntmen.abuzar.net/tnt/news/f33.html
a brief google search found this article regarding the police`s position regarding nudity during the parade.
while families went for a day out.....
When you say Western Civ is full of nudes, male and female, I think those tend to be less Christian eras of Western Civ. It is only as we revert back to paganism and non-Christian ethics that even nudity regarding women has become 'acceptable'. Once the fruit was consumed in the garden, open nudity became a thing not natural or right to the faithful. It is odd that what once was a sign of perfection became a thing of sinners.
Michael Lee,
Just for the record, I've had many, many, MANY women ask me to show them my dick. Far more than I've ever asked women to show me their boobs (cause I've never asked except when in a sexual relationship... in which case the jahoobies will be out 24/7 anyway, and I needn't ask).
Btw, women do indeed looking at penises. It's just that they like big hard excited ones that are ready to skewer their gold filled v-treasuries.
What turns her on though, I suspect, is the narcism of it. The "naked truth" of seeing how much her sexuality turns a man on. A woman who cannot garner sexual attention from men is a woman who does not get a roof over her head nor food in her belly - at least not until recently. This is not true for men, for whom sex & sexuality is not their primary means of survival.
Let's not forget that exhibitionism is pretty much a top female fantasy for a reason.
Remember, women ARE sexual, while men are ALSO sexual. (meaning, women are virtually 100% about sex, whereas men are about many different things, including sex).
Methinks somebody missed the turn in Albuquerque ant thinks he is in Penthouse Forum.
Ha ha, good one, Larry... there's nothing like beta-suckers continually demanding that women are angel-virgins, only to discover that she is humping the thug across the tracks after emptying out the deluded woman-worshipper's bank account and his house full of furniture (or just taking the whole house).
Women are just as sexual as men, and men who deny this reality are just asking for an ass-raping. Now that's a Playgirl letter for you, my friend.
I don't even really understand why deluded chumps like Larry make such stunned comments... is it that you are looking for some rationale explanation of why your ex screwed you over other than that you were no longer her Alpha one and only? Are whipped little pussy commenters like you just seeking a way to console yourself why you have been so severely ass-screwed everytime you've been near a western woman?
What is pathetic is not the behaviour of the women, sadly enough, but rather, the mangina men willing to tolerate this bullshit.
Peeeeeeyuke!
while rob`s language suggests he`s been reading "the game", he has a valid point. a sexually satisfied woman is happy with her lot in life.....while a frustrated one may choose to collect assets instead.
the last comment is in no way scientific, as my personal sample size is small (1), but she is happy.
women are as sexual as men.
there are those who say men are visual and state that as a reason for the male consumption of pornography. sure. why not.
but if you want an eye-opener regarding what women consume, then go to the romance section of your local book store and look for titles with pictures of cowboys or pirates on the cover holding the fair maiden against the wind......and read a chapter or two.
kinky little vixens. god bless `em.
men are confused about female sexuality and think that the money and security and a house will keep her, no matter how you treat her.....but she will leave your ass if you mis-treat her for long enough and don`t ring her bell the way she wants it rung.....in spite of the money, the ring and the car and the house.
and she can ask her lawyer to take it from you if you continue.
so, yeah...go ahead and build her a house and take her places and dress her up, but you`d better whisper dirty things in her ear occasionally and handcuff her at the kitchen sink, and eat ice cream out of her hand in the restaurant while you put your foot up her skirt.
`cause she has thoughts too.
and i know you`d like them to include you.
"... but she will leave your ass if you mis-treat her for long enough and don`t ring her bell the way she wants it rung.....in spite of the money, the ring and the car and the house."
-------
And most American women won't even BE with you in the first place if the ring and car and house are not in place or lined up.
Slowly, slowly, men should start asking themeselves: "Are they really worth it"?
tether, do you mean that men are worth it?
and worth what?
i think there are many women out there who are hair and nails types and want a paycheque, but many are not like that at all.
i live with one.
she bright, funny, well educated, god job, loves her kids and mine, and we look forward to and plan for a future together.
in fact, right now, she makes more than i do.
hte true exchange of value is that we just want to be together all the time.
sems a little "golly gee" to some, but the fact remains.
we go to the pictures and hold hands all the time and walk along the water...and talk and plan our lives.
not about investments and holdings and assets and trips.
just more time spent together.
and i see the hair and nails girls cruising around, tapping thier nails on the steering wheel, impatient that they aren`t futher along with thier cunning plan.
doesn`t mean you have to give them even the time of day.
and who said it would be easy to find a girl who just wanted you?
it took me 48 years....
It's almost sounds like you're a woman, "Dr." Alistair.
Here's my stab at it:
A woman I know started going on and on about her Beanie Baby doll collection. To her, those dolls have a very high value and she is willing to pay out lots of money for them.
I have no interest in them, so they are pretty much worthless to me.
Now let's carry that analogy over to women: I like having sex with women and I like talking to a very small minority of women who are interested in the same things I'm interested in.
But having some dull housewife around or being locked into an arrangement in which the woman has the complete upper hand in a legal sense is of no interest to me.
But then I see men who seem to not only be willing to fork over the majority of their paycheck for some situation like that, they are also willing to give the opportunity to legally snare future earnings / assets of the man.
To me, that is just as silly and stupid as paying a fortune for some dolls. It just doesn't interest me and I frankly can't even understand it.
And here's the big point: A lot of the women who are being chased by these men only have superficial looks that ARE GOING TO fade. Without a doubt. Underneath, a lot of these women are vindictive, childish, exploitive and lazy.
So stick to your long walks on the beach with your soul-mate, "Dr." Alistair, but spare me (and maybe others) the details.
If you're honest, "Dr." Alistair, you'll also admit that you've been with Cupcake less than 2-3 years.
Because what you are describing is the infatuation of a new relationship, and that infatuation is based on the newness of sex among other things.
tether, i will give you that. a year and a half.
but newness of sex...come on.
my girlfriend has hobbies and pastimes that i don`t find as engaging as she does, and some of the things i find interesting are lost on her.
but here`s the thing.
there are many other things we find that we do share a common interest in and we indulge in those things daily.
it sounds to me as if you`ve been putting to much pressure on the wrong sex to please you.
women tend to be into things like care bears and nick-nacks of that sort. they also like clothes and shoes and decorating and making the garden nice...so if that is irritating to you....maybe you need to look to someone from the other team as a partner...because i can see that you`ve checked all the women in america already.
another irritated, jilted, misogynist with bad breath and shit fashion sense who believes that women are getting more than a fair deal, and once you get over the part about who`s bits go where on an evening, you guys will have lots to talk about and common interests in rugged manly things.
Dr. Alistair, you're using one of the famous lines of feminists when a man says anything critical about women ("you are probably gay"). Two other main ones are "you'll never get laid with that attitude" and "you probably have a small penis".
But I think it's great that strong, chivalrous men like you are sticking up for the little ladies. I almost don't dare say "hero", do I.
i wan`t saying probably...and good that you are chivalrous toward tether.
i wonder what he has to say about all this.
not that he has to defend himself in this "enlightened" age, of coursthat would be a bit of a give-away.
regarding sticking up for the ladies; i tend to agree with thether on most points, it`s just that he takes it so far as to say that all women are like that, and therefore useless to live with. i infer from that that he couldn`t have more than the most brief of encounters with one of these creatures...and then the penny dropped.
hero stance? no. niether do i crusade. i believe in something more than a 50% partnership in a relationship between a man and a woman...my doctorate is in metaphysics after all.
otherwise all we are left with is contracts and performance over time....which is where tether and yourself stopped.
oh, and by the way, gay men are learning about legal theft of property too now.
I think our society would be well served if everyone agreed to be clothed from at least mid-thigh to upper chest in public. It would generally make life flow more smoothly. But then, I'm a fan of modesty, without bias toward male or female.
That said, in our society it's difficult to avoid public nudity in some form, and most of us have experience of private nudity of the opposite sex before we leave our 20s (or teens). So the issue isn't lack of familiarity, but more a matter of sexual attitudes and, I think, some degree of hypocrisy. A lot of people (myself included) would find a naked person of either sex inappropriate in a public setting, for reasons of modesty and smooth public interaction. I'm not threatened, I just don't want to see it in that context. But women do ooooh and ahhhh over well-built men undressed to varying degrees in photos, in a performance or sports context, in movies, etc. However, when faced with a nude man in a public space they aren't quite sure how they're supposed to react. Those who aren't distressed for modesty's sake would, I suspect, feel it would be a poor reflection on them if they showed obvious intrigue in public over a naked man. They may fear that it would indicate they themselves are sexually aggressive or more sexually available than they are or want to be perceived. It upsets the cultural roles we are trained to assume in Western culture.
Men wouldn't like it either for modesty reasons or because they don't like to see other naked men in what could possibly be construed as a sexual setting, or at least sexually comparative. And for a man to admire a live man's physique, in any setting, would carry homosexual connotations in most people's minds, whether or not the admiring man was thinking that way. I actually think the naked man is more threatening to other men than to women, in that way.
As for beauty vs the beast ... another cultural attitude. I think the nude bodies of women and men are equally beautiful, in their own ways. My interest in men's bodies goes beyond the aesthetic, but it doesn't exclude the aesthetic. Beauty is, after all, in the eyes of the beholder.
I'd just rather admire in private.
Jay C.: "Most of the hetero women I know openly agree with most men that the female body is more pleasing on the eyes and would prefer to see nude women in art then nude men...Or at least that's what they SAY..."
Yes, what they SAY. Because they've been told they're supposed to repress their thoughts on this -- that it's natural for men to want to see the female form, while a woman who would like to look at men must be a slut. So they SAY they have no interest in looking at men because they're expected to.
We need to get past this archaic attitude that men are from Mars and women are from Venus. Many men are interested in sex; some are not. Many women are interested in sex; some are not. People generally like to look at the human form; heterosexuals will likely prefer looking at the opposite gender.
We see this double standard, ironically, both ways. In some places, a naked man is considered normal whereas a naked woman is considered scandalous. This is because of the (rather silly) idea that men are sexual beings in asexual bodies, while women are asexual beings in sexual bodies. The kind of thing Dr. Helen describes, though seemingly the exact opposite, actually stems from the same place: the idea that a naked female body is harmless, while a naked male body is threatening. Neither example of the double standard is particularly flattering to men: either to be told your body simply isn't aesthetically pleasing or to be told that your body will make some people feel threatened.
So they SAY they have no interest in looking at men because they're expected to.
I always thought women's preference for the female form simple narcissism.
Post a Comment
<< Home