Sylvia D. Lucas wants to put the “men’s bodies are yucky” myth to bed.
You’ve undoubtedly noticed, perhaps approvingly, that you’re more likely to see naked women than naked men in movies unless they’re the meaningful, artistic, or plot-essential nude scenes involving concentration camp victims or emotionally distraught older males revealing their surprising vulnerability. (Don’t worry—I’m not discounting the gratuitous penis scenes in the likes of Forgetting Sarah Marshall, Wolverine, Wild Things, Color of Night, and others, but you do have to admit those are few and far between.)
A boyfriend and I have had lengthy, and sometimes heated, discussions about why there isn’t a more balanced penis-to-breast ratio in modern cinema. “There’s no audience for it,” he said. “Men like naked women, but women don’t care if they see naked men in movies.”
I’m sorry?
Yes. Yes, we do. We enjoy it. Partial nudity or full nudity, we like it (more so if he has a nice body, naturally—anyone who is plopped naked into a film and who has a body generally agreed upon to be unattractive is usually included for comedic value, and just as men will laugh and point at an unattractive naked female, we’ll do the same when the male is unattractive).
I’m not sure who started the rumor that we don’t like male nudity or the male body, but it’s been very effective—I’ve even heard some women taking the sentiment further by saying, “Women’s bodies are beautiful, but men’s are funny-looking. Their thing just sort of dangles there like … I don’t know what. I would always rather look at a naked woman than a naked man.”
Er… OK.
N … No. Nope.
Straight women like men’s bodies. In fact, it deserves its own line:
We love your body.
Generally speaking, that is. We, too, are visual creatures, after all (if we weren’t, why would we spend so much time decorating?), so to be perfectly honest, we probably aren’t going to be immediately attracted to a man who doesn’t take care of himself by eating right, getting some regular exercise, etc., but when it comes to our overall attraction to The Male Body, our appreciation of it is actually quite healthy.
Robust, even.
We love your strong, solid thighs and calves. Your penises in their wide variety of shapes and sizes (and sometimes, angles), which, by the way, are just as enjoyable to look at when they’re soft as when they’re not. (Penises are no weirder for dangling there than breasts are for hanging where they do—all of these parts are exactly where they belong, and we very much like where the penis belongs, both aesthetically and on a more utilitarian level.) You have broad shoulders. Wide chests. That V shape as the back narrows to the waist.
Yes, we love the naked male body. And we’d like to see more of it in movies. We’ve been deprived for too long because someone, somewhere (probably a man who didn’t want to see naked men in movies) started the rumor that men’s bodies are ugly and awkward. There’s no reason for men to think women feel this way about them, or for men to have adopted the opinion, themselves. As much scrutiny as the female body has endured over the years, it doesn’t make me feel any better to know men have been made to feel their bodies are somehow unattractive or inadequate. Your bodies are damn beautiful. That said, you should, however, be aware that…
Size matters
It’s time you know the not-so-gentle, but still very loving, truth about how we feel about your penis. After all, we know just about all we could ever possibly know about how you feel about our breasts. It’s only fair that you receive the same straightforward and unfiltered feedback.
How we feel about penis size is all very situation-specific, but even so, there’s no getting around it—size does matter. It’s safe to assume that American men are more aware of, and concerned about, this than are—for example—European men, because, of the two, American men are the least likely to wear Speedos. Why are they so reluctant to show us everything while expecting/hoping women will wear itsy bitsy teeny weenie bikinis? It could be that our country—as compared to a European country—is the least likely to expose much of the male body in magazine ads, commercials, movies, and car shows, which leads to our American men feeling like they should always be pretty well covered in the groin area. Publicly, anyway. Privately, you’re often very happy being naked. And we thank you for that.
♦◊♦
For those of you who retrieve your information about women from Men’s Health magazine, this section will respond to the 2010 Men’s Health article, “How Big Is Yours? Penis Size Doesn’t Matter to Her. So Stop Worrying and Start Pleasuring Her.” This article strives to reassure men that their penis size is loved just the way it is by citing as support a British research study and an informal survey of two women: Nicole Beland, who was Men’s Health’s “Girl Next Door” until 2009, and Men’s Health “Sex Professor” Debby Herbenick, Ph.D.
The results of the British research: “63 percent of men complained of having inferior hardware—but none of them was smaller than normal!” (emphasis theirs). The article goes on to ask, and answer, “What is the average penis size? Measuring erect, between 5.5 and 6.2 inches long and 4.7 to 5.1 inches around.”
The British study also returned the following results: “85 percent of women reported they were happy with their partner’s size.” I should note that it’s been found women will often lie when asked questions about sex, and this includes questions about whether we’re sexually satisfied with a mate, whether we watch porn, whether we’ve had an affair, and how many sexual partners we’ve had, so draw your own conclusions about the legitimacy of the penis-satisfaction findings.
And what did the female Men’s Health employees say about whether penis size matters?
Former “Girl Next Door” Nicole Beland: “Yes, we care about the size of a man’s penis. But when it comes to sexual satisfaction, it’s pretty far down on our list of priorities.”
“Sex Professor” Debby Herbenick, Ph.D.: “Women find it difficult to orgasm [during penis-vagina intercourse], and oral sex and hand stimulation are often more effective, as are vibrators,” she says. “It’s not personal—it’s just how some women’s bodies work.”
When it comes to penis size and intercourse, Dr. Herbenick’s assessment is difficult to argue with because it’s often true. While we certainly enjoy sex with your penis, it isn’t necessarily going to finish us off without help elsewhere.
As for what Beland says, I suspect she may not have had sex with a man with a very small penis. While even a small one can be very gratifying (sexual position can change to accommodate size), if it’s very small, it usually won’t be as gratifying for a woman as it will be with a man who has a larger penis.
Of course, whether a penis is “small” or “large,” for the purposes of intercourse, depends entirely on how the male/female bodies fit together as a unit. Jane Doe’s “large” may be Jenny Doe’s “small.” And, again, whether the insertion of the penis brings her the greatest pleasure she’s ever known isn’t as important as many men think it is, because, as Dr. Herbenick said, we like other forms of stimulation, too.
But then there’s aesthetic value.
It’s true that we love the male body and the many sizes and shapes it comes in. But, just as many men enjoy looking at larger breasts—in tank tops, in tight T-shirts, in wet T-shirts, in bras, in baggy sweaters, in bikinis—women enjoy looking at larger penises.
In the previously mentioned study of British men and their penises, the men were found to be of “normal” size when they were measured erect. Somehow, I have a feeling it wasn’t their erect penis they were concerned with, but their soft, un-engorged penis. It isn’t the erect penis we see in jeans, sweat pants, Speedos, and underwear. It isn’t the erect penis we first see (unless it’s early in the relationship) when you take off your clothes. When we look down as we pass you on the street, we’re hoping for something we can see, something that presses against your jeans, something that makes us say, “Oh…”
It doesn’t mean we don’t love your soft penis no matter what size it is, it just means you might catch us turning for a second look (or staring) when a bigger one happens by. It’s nothing personal. It’s just how some women’s visual stimulation works. (Thank you, Nicole Beland.) While we should certainly avoid being obvious and rude about it, we hope you’ll take our interest, even if it’s a very fleeting interest in another man’s pants, as evidence that whoever started the “men’s bodies are funny-looking” trend is full of shit.
Check out Sylvia’s book, What Every Woman Wishes Modern Men Knew About Women.
—Photo Oggie Dog/Flickr
About Sylvia D. Lucas
We’ve been deprived for too long because someone, somewhere (probably a man who didn’t want to see naked men in movies) started the rumor that men’s bodies are ugly and awkward.
Either that or men who were already into the idea that women don’t want to see naked guys.
One thing I’ve noticed is that all the talk I hear about how men are supposedly sexually free is we still have enough shame drilled into us to not believe that our bodies simply aren’t sexually desirable.
While I’m all into male nudity, I don’t really get the comparison between breasts and penises in film. How often do you see female genitalia on the big screen? Not very often, I’ll tell you that. Breasts aren’t genitals.
Yeah, I’d go with a comparison of breasts to buttocks for men. Either way, more would be great.
That’s an odd one to me too. You’d think it would be genitals to genitals, butt to butt, and breasts to pectorals……
well, if male pecs counted in the tally… there would be far more male nudity than female in media. faaar more.
Thanks for dispelling the “Size doesn’t matter” myth. It’s always amazed me how fericiously women will fight back when you call them out on that. Even “The Sex Professor” does verbal gymnastics rather than just admit the truth. The only thing is , all those other body features you describe take a back seat to the”Love Muscle “. So if you have a nice hard body, but aren’t packing “serious man meat” your as they say in the hot rod world “All show and no go”.
“why there isn’t a more balanced penis-to-breast ratio in modern cinema.”
Penis’ are genitals, breasts are not. Also, men have breasts just as women do, just no milk ducts and less fatty tissue – until we get to our late 40s or 50s when we can develop moobs if we’re not careful!
Movies show what people want to, or at least don’t mind seeing. What hetero man wants to see another man’s junk. Answer: none. Also, far fewer women are interested in seeing a man’s penis than men are in seeing a woman’s breasts. It’s really that simple. But, take heart, at least you get to see lots of topless men in movies.
“What hetero man wants to see another man’s junk. Answer: none.”
And that’s why porno has no cocks.
Wait…
“Movies show what people want to, or at least don’t mind seeing.”
I don’t know. I think it’s safe to argue that they’re equally responsible for telling us what we’re supposed to enjoy.
“What hetero man wants to see another man’s junk. Answer: none.”
What hero woman wants to see another woman’s anything? Answer: None. Yet, the breasts keep showing up on my screen.
I’m not exactly a heterosexual woman, but the sheer volume of tits and ass that I’m exposed to leaves me cold.
How it’s presented doesn’t help either.
“I don’t know. I think it’s safe to argue that they’re equally responsible for telling us what we’re supposed to enjoy.”
I haven’t seen evidence of that. Product makers can occassionally do that (e.g. Apple). However, because there are so many movie/TV options today, if movie-makers don’t produce what people want to see and are willing to pay for, they don’t get viewers, and hence funding for subsequent movies.
“What hero woman wants to see another woman’s anything? Answer: None. Yet, the breasts keep showing up on my screen.”
There are many times more male breasts/chests than women’s on display in movies and even on TV, with G and PG ratings no less.
Wow. I never knew there were so many myths.
I guess, given the pressure to produce, we can always think of something nobody believes, call it a “myth”, and debunk it.
AFAIK, the only source for this in the entire world is a story Hugo told….about an art teacher way back.
At a recent performance of “Hugh Jackman: Back on Broadway,” the star got an ovation when he appeared onstage in a molded-to-the-body suit. Later, during an impressive Peter Allen impersonation (which he’d perfected when he did “The Boy From Oz” on Broadway a few years back), he unzipped a tight-fitting top (not really a jacket) exposing his chest down to the navel. The coos and gasps from women in the audience could have been heard all the way to 8th Avenue. Seventy percent of that audience was female, women who really hungered to see more of mighty Hugh, and their reaction to that peek at chest and abs was a dead giveaway. Of course women love to look at men’s bodies. Isn’t that part of what “attraction” is all about?
Parents: if your last name starts with a J or a “Juh” sound, don’t name your son Hugh. That makes his name “Huge” something, which is either going to be an insult or something hard to live up to….
Fame bring out all sorts of atypical responses from women. At the beach, I don’t really see that many women cooing and gasping at the non celebrity, but in better shape than Hugh, guys in only swim trunks.
If I may address this, I’d say that may be because the context of the beach is not appropriate for the cooing and gasping. The women in the audience are supposed to coo and gasp, cheer and applaud, for Hugh (or whoever) is onstage with the purpose of entertaining them. The men on the beach are there for a number of reasons, perhaps even to be eye candy (much like women in bikinis) but the context requires a more surreptitious appreciation. Yesterday at the gym, I had quite a good time watching men work out. Gasp and coo? Nope, cause it would have been really inappropriate to do so whilst on the treadmill.
You didn’t address it. You made rationalizations.
1. Beach culture is not surreptitious… it’s the opposite.
2. Men love being checked out by women… directly… no matter the location.
Women like the male body, but they don’t love it.
So context doesn’t ever play a role for you? If you were at church in a very nice suit and a woman hooted and yelled in the middle of a service that wouldn’t be inappropriate? Women have permission to hoot and holler at a show, just as men have permission to stare pointedly at a exotic dance club.
Women do look at male bodies, they just don’t always tell you they are looking. You are completely generalizing women’s experiences. As to why we don’t show off more men’s bodies in the media, I’d guess it’s because advertisers believe that men don’t want to see them, but that women will be ok with seeing women’s bodies. I love a lot of different types of bodies male and female alike. I’m always quite pleased when I get to view one, better still get personal with one.
Is direct to you only ever hooting and yelling?
I’ve had my ass pinched in a Sears for chrissakes… extremely direct, but surely devoid of hooting and yellling. Yes, women do look at male bodies (no you aren’t as sly as you think you are) but your reaction to our bodies is not nearly the same as our reaction to yours.
As for advertisers content choices. Its basic economics.
Naked chicks = Dudes spend money and fast: Women don’t care.
Naked guys = Dudes turn the channel. Women spend a little more money than the would have otherwise.
Sigh. No. My example was in reference to yours. On the beach the gasping won’t happen due to context. What is the reaction that is different? Penile stim? You think women don’t get aroused at looking at a hot man? Our arousal isn’t visible but we do see it. Or do you mean reaction as in, taking someone home?
Yup women do get aroused looking at a hot man,… but OBVIOUSLY not enough to make lady porn a bigger business than romance novels…or for women to be as interested in casual sex as men. Just sayin.
Yeah, I think about this a lot. So, for me, and this is likely TMI, were I to watch traditional porn, it would be male on male. Because I find the men beautiful and because I find the sex hot and I find porn actresses to be generally unlike me to the point of alienation. I can’t relate to them and I can’t relate to the sneery expressionless sex. The face is indeed part of the hot body. For erotic involving women and men, I prefer written forms, but I don’t much like romance novels. Too cliched. I’d rather have more alternative stories, good solid writing and the ability to project the images of men and women I find attractive onto the characters. The relationship stuff, I guess it’s a piece of what’s good, but I rarely enjoy the “Count” that saves the “Maiden” kind of stories.
Watching mechanics of sex isn’t enough, even if the bodies are hot (except in the rare cases of gay porn, but even then I want to see kissing and people looking at each other). I often wonder why men’s porn involves faces at all (except for the facials, I do understand why that happens).
You sit at a very interesting place on the bell curve of sexuality. Thanks for sharing.
Yup. The gay (male on male) porn choice makes absolute sense for a woman who is more visual than most women, but less so than most men. All hetero guys enjoy girl on girl, so when a woman tells me how much she loves male bodies, but then is turned off by gay depictions, I know she is just boasting rather than being truthful.
Re: Facials
There’s a erotic reason behind the fact that cum shots land on the face… as well as ass and tits.The female face… especially the mouth and eyes.. is very arousing. Men respond erotically to that body part and so it will remain present in porn. That is also why all that lipstick and eye makeup you guys purchase will remain a big seller for women.
I don’t think most men are purely into mechanics, there needs to be some fantasy of a personality who’s reacting mentally to what’s going on with their body…the fantasy personality may be very cartoonish and lack any real detail but I think there’s gotta be something. And it’s hard to do that without seeing a face…as an analogy, if someone asked you to write a paragraph imagining what a person is like based on seeing only their picture, you’d probably feel a lot more inspired with specific ideas if you saw their face than if you saw only their body. But whether the fantasy personality has any resemblance to the actress’ real personality, whether you get any sense of what she might *really* be thinking and feeling when watching her, doesn’t seem that important. So in this sense it does seem like men are more “purely” visual than women typically are, even if women appreciate visuals as part of a more complete package.
I remember actually reading once that men look *more* at faces in porn than women do, and a little googling turned up this: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070412160210.htm
so interesting! Do you think that men (on average) seek out versions of their ideal woman? Or more like….if they usually date slim blonds they’d look for buxom brunettes? I ask because I rarely see women that look like me, medium height, medium length hair, small breasts. And I rarely see the type of man that turns me on in straight porn.
That’s a good question, but I don’t have much sense of what the tastes of the average male would be in this case…personally I like more variety, and I feel like there’s too much of a standard look in modern porn, but maybe a lot of guys do just want to see a fairly specific type, I dunno.
(of course in my last comment I was also generalizing from my own psychology, maybe I was wrong to do that, but I felt like it was reasonable to think many men would be similar based on the thing I linked to about it being common for men to spend a lot of time looking at faces, combined with the fact that men can typically be aroused just by looking at pictures which tell you almost nothing about the woman’s real personality)
@Julie
I think men definitely seek out variants of their physically ideal woman, rather than an “opposite”. But you should note that hair color, and hair length are not categories of porn like breast size, so I think men’s ideal types are broad…even to the point that one is more likely to see the genre divided by sex act than by certain specific physical characteristics.
RE: Porn star stereotypes
Because of a former job, I attended a conference held in LV for a few years. The event coincided with an annual adult show, so after work I would run into women in hotel lounges/casinos and be like what are you here for and they would say “porn”. Eye opening!
Most women and maybe men too would be really surprised to find out that the average female porn star, save weight/age, is extremely average. They are medium height (5’4″ ish), with medium hair and a good third of them are small breasted (B or A cup).
Ever heard of Nina Hartley?
Yes I have. I’ve had the pleasure of meeting here at a SXSW recently. She’s quite lovely dnd has inspired a great bit of my sex positive work.
@ Julie
“And I rarely see the type of man that turns me on in straight porn.”
I think the actors in porn are all the same for pretty much the same reason that most mass produced chocolate tastes like ash rather then chocolate.
It’s easier to make and everyone is used to it.
Hmmm. Let’s say I buy your premise. Then for all the pecs we show women at the beach, you sure do owe us a lot more than the 5 second boob shots in the movies. Show us your tits right now ladies. Fair is fair!
The truth is you like our bods. You don’t love them. Your friend is right about modern films and female priorities. You vote with your dollar so if you TRULY ached for male strippers or lady porn, capitalism would have found you by now.
You overstate the truth.
I would like to ask you why you are so intent on telling so many of us women what we like and don’t like. I as a woman don’t just like the male body, I love it, and I know many other women who love it as well. But for some reason, you and many other men refuse to believe us. Why is that? You tell us you love the female body, and we believe you, why can’t you and other men return the same? It seems to me that unless we follow the male standard of visual arousal, and react the same way men do, our appreciation of male beauty doesn’t count. Just because I may not react the same way sexually as a man to looking at a naked body of the opposite sex, it does not mean I don’t see it as hot and beautiful. I just react differently, that is all. Women are very diverse in what we find sexually arousing. Men almost seem to react to a predictable formula. It is very easy to market porn and sex to men. It is hard to do so with women because our tastes in what we want to see varies so much from one woman to the next. It is pretty hard to hit a home run. For example, I do not get turned on looking at the male body in a pornographic image, although I love to see it simply for its beauty, but I do get turned on when I see it on display in advertising and in other forms of media, especially when I don’t expect it. I don’t know why that is, and I can’t explain it. Other women will hear me say this, and not be able to relate to me. We are that different from each other.
I have been a fan of the male bod since I was a tween. I always saw it as an impressive and majestic work of art. although I didn’t long for it sexually until I reached a later age. When I finally desired it sexually, its beauty to me increased as well as its sensuality. I believe that females are indoctrinated to not see it as beautiful or sensual, simply by its omission (other than comical) from the public arena. When juxtaposed to the daily drenching of females on display, it is no wonder that so many women may feel it unnatural to see the male body as something worthy of our gaze, and totally natural to accept the female nude as exclusively beautiful.
When I was in Paris with my daughter, then around 10 years old, we were in an art museum and she asked me a question. I think her question and my answer go a long ways towards explaining why there are so few naked men in movies compared to how many naked women there are.
We were perusing the paintings, and she was looking at “The Luncheon on the Grass” by Manet…the one with all these naked women having a picnic with fully dressed men. She was really perplexed and asked me, “Mommy, why are there so many paintings in this museum that show naked women randomly for no reason with men who have all their clothes on?”
I said, “Look at the names of the artists. Is there anything you notice about them?” She immediately replied, “Yeah! They’re all men! I get it now!”
Now, just apply a movie/tv studio lens to that and think about the gender of most directors/producers/writers. Hey, out of the mouths of babes! And BTW, I LOVE men’s bodies. Glad to see this myth busted.
Except that male artists are more inclined to paint nude women than female artists are inclined to paint nude men. And “true” art as we know is not about the audience, but the artist. So a museum of all women painters WON’T have nearly as many male nudes as a museum of ALL male painters will have female nudes.
Who runs hollywood has no bearing on what women like relative to men.
I am a professional artist and I must tell you there is a culture of what is acceptable in the art community as well. Yea I know, we all like to romanticize the idea of the independent artists doing specifically what inspires them. But that is the exception, not the rule. I once tried to promote the idea of male nudity in art, and you would think I was promoting a visual perversion. Most people, even artists want to be accepted by their peers, and I hate to be the bearer of bad news to you, but we are not the independent rogue visual thinkers that the media makes us out to be. We women artists don’t paint the nude male form more often, because there is still a level of great discomfort and embarrassment in it on a societal level. It is just safe, and more acceptable to paint the female nude. I always know that if I show up at the gallery or show with one of those, I don’t have to face humiliating scrutiny. I suppose, I could be a better person, but I have to make a living like everyone else. Unless we are bringing in an income from alternative sources, most artists will spend their time selling images to the general pubic that will be accepted by their peer community. In the end, we have to make a living too.
That’s really interesting. I’ve always wondered! When I had that experience with my daughter, we were looking mostly at 19th century art when there really weren’t many female artists, or not many who achieved fame and relevance. So, there was no way to compare apples to apples and see what the female artists were painting. But you’re saying that these days, when there are plenty of female artists, the cultural norm is to just paint female nudes. Fascinating. I wonder why society is uncomfortable? I stood in line FOREVER at the Accademia in Florence to see The David. There could not possibly be a more powerful art experience of male nudity than that and it was mobbed! It seems like there used to be more male nudes in art. So are you saying that has changed?
I think this is a fascinating subject about the male nude in art. In terms of the statue of David, that statue is the universally accepted example of nude male beauty. You will often see it referenced in these types of discussions. There is no shame or stigma in looking at it, even if you wait in line to see it. An added bonus is that it is even acceptable for men to look at it without being labeled as gay. It is a “hetero-safe” male nude. A female friend of mine went to see it, and described it as the most beautiful piece of art she had ever seen. There is a level of cultural comfort in describing the statue as such. There were many male nudes routinely celebrated then. Not so today. We had a Puritanical and Cultural change since then.
I have a question for you Lori. Women artists seem to be undrawn to the male nude in their art. I have my opinions as to why that is. I think it is largely sexual at its depths. Do you think this is another hurdle for women to get beyond as women? It was not that long ago, that women were not allowed to enjoy sex at all before marriage or be labeled Slut. We have been taught to repress our sexuality for fear of how we would be perceived for a very long time. Do you think the level of comfort we would need amongst ourselves and men to openly produce male nudes is a stage of sexual independence we have not yet achieved? Gay males have no trouble expressing their appreciation of the male nude, and have done some extraordinary work that is quite beautiful. An interesting side note: sometimes the penis is barely featured. They see the all beauty in its entirety that I see. There is no stigma for them.
We women did not achieve sexual freedom until it became acceptable to men and women alike. We fought and raised awareness in the culture, that the sexual repression that we endured was not something we were willing to live with any longer. But no matter how you look at it, it was the eventual acceptance by the culture of our terms that was key to wether or not it was a viable success. Our right to be sexual was accepted by both men and other women. Since there are so few women artists in comparison to women at large, fewer still who do any nudes at all, expect no mass movement in acceptance of male nudity by female artists.
That’s a great question and I don’t know! I don’t know what is at play culturally. I remember taking a life drawing class and all the models were female except one. The MEN were the ones having a hard time drawing the male model–even looking at him. Women seemed fine with both genders. This was just one experience a long time ago. I don’t know if/why women are uncomfortable drawing/painting men. There may be less of a market for that art if men do more of the buying? The artist I commissioned to paint my daughter’s portrait was a gay man. In his studio were more paintings of nude men than women. And I remember it so caught my attention, because if I think about what I typically see displayed in museums, restaurants, hotels, private homes…way more nude women. So is it about the artist or the buyer? The artist or the consumer of art? I’m just not the best person to ask I guess…more Q’s than A’s here!
I was told in art classes long ago that the nude was more valued by artist than a clothed body because it is more difficult to sculpt a nude body than it is to sculpt one in clothing. I can imagine it’s more difficult to sculpt the perfect (artistically speaking) penis & scrotum out of marble than it is to sculpt perfect breasts and mons pubis. Can’t say I’ve ever seen a marble vulva though.
Interestingly, I’ve been the winner of not one, but TWO penis-sculpting contests. They were party games at two separate sex-toy parties I attended, one using play-doh and the other with a banana, using my mouth. Not exactly accolades to put on my resume, but I do like having those bragging rights.
I used to do pencil and charcoal sketches a lot, and can say I’ve personally drawn more females (including nudes) than males. I found the organic curves of a woman much easier to capture and shade than the often more rigid or angular features of a man – all my men turned out flat and square-shouldered with effeminate faces.
There is one male nude that I remember from my sketchbooks, which I drew using a photo for reference, not being an art student and not having male models available to me. His pose was face-down on a beach, lifting his upper body with his arms, his head dropped down out of sight between his shoulders. I never finished that drawing – I got too frustrated with shading the muscles on his back, and trying to capture his feet, which have never been my strong point. I guess that’s why I never pursued my art hobby beyond high school, I’m too impatient.
I still have my sketchbooks and pencils, though. Maybe I should try drawing a man with frontal nudity, just for the sake of comparison.
Also of interest to this discussion is the influence of the church. Phallic art was very common with the Greeks and Romans – naked statues out in the middle of the town plaza, erections a-blazing. With the rise of the Holy Roman Empire, many of these statues were destroyed or, as it were, dismembered. A lot of art that followed was censored with fig leaves and such because of the power and influence of the church. Sculptors who did continue to produce uncensored male nudes would downplay the penis – gone were the days of the enormous phallus, replaced instead with a dainty little flaccid bloop. As the Pope goes, so goes the rest of the H.R.E.
At the National Museum of the U.S. Air Force in Dayton, there is (or was) a statue of Icarus with a fig leaf over his privates. I remember going there as a kid and wanting desperately for my parents to look the other way so I could go under the statue and see if there was anything sculpted under the fig leaf. LOL!
The male body is more challenging to draw as you say. I believe the reason for that is that much of what we see in the male body is what is going on under the skin. If you do not capture the highlights, and shadows and the flow of one muscle into and around another, you end up with as you say a flat square shouldered figure. Women have a layer of fat, so all you need to do is concentrate on the overall shape and far less highlights and shadows. With the female nude, one does not have to be as concerned with properly depicting musculature. I am not saying that the underlying anatomy be ignored in the female nude, but that it is more challenging to depict in the male. This could be a contributing factor for less male drawings being done by women as well as societal prejudices. I know that drawing females is much easier for me.
I wrote “true” for a reason. I understand the commercial considerations of art. That’s one of the reasons I chose not to major in what I really wanted to. The point you miss was about level of interest in nudity across gender when money doesn’t matter. The photo collection of a male amateur photographer is going to have a lot more cheesecake than a female amateur photographer will have beefcake. It’s a sex difference. No need to pretend otherwise.
I appreciate your opinion, but as I said in my comment, it is very much about peer acceptance as well. It is not just about the money. You will find few professions that center around peer review and acceptance more than the creative arts. Recognition and acceptance is treasured. Have you ever watched the Oscars? It is often nothing more than a showcase of adoration of others in your profession. That adoration is coveted.
I am not saying that there is as much of a desire for male nudes as female nudes in the art world. But when, as an artist who frequents art galleries, and art media outlets, the almost total absence of male torsos is rather curious to me. The athletic male body is a magnificent machine. It is impressive in its strength and beautiful to look at in its entirety. It is not about the penis. I also find it interesting that whenever we talk about male nudity it so often ends up about the penis. Even in terms of this discussion, just look at the number of times the subject ends up about the penis and the scrotum rather than the rest of the body. We are so fixated on the relevance of the male genitalia, that we often ignore the the rest of the beauty before our eyes.
Ahh, to be a shower and not a grower.
I agree that men’s bodies are beautiful. But that’s where my agreement stops. I am not interested in seeing strange men’s organs. I don’t get automatically turned on by seeing a penis and I don’t have much interest in seeing it at this age since I already know they come in different sizes and shapes. And I certainly don’t care if it’s bigger then normal or not. No matter the size, the site of a penis alone doesn’t turn me on. In my relationships, I also don’t care about penis size. It’s not even on my radar. If I am into a man, I am into all of him. And my already established like/love in him only makes his body, no matter what size it is, more alluring. Although I do love a man’s eyes. They can make me melt. And I like nice shoulders, arms and hands more.
I think we see more naked women because women are more physically objectified then men. Not out of an idea that men are “ugly” so much as who runs more of what we watch. Mostly men.
I think we see more naked women because women are more physically objectified then men. Not out of an idea that men are “ugly” so much as who runs more of what we watch. Mostly men.
I don’t know I think those forces work hand in hand. Have guys think they are not attractive so they won’t be interested in showing off their bodies and that women won’t be interested in them and have women think that they are attractive so they will be intrested in showing off their bodies and that men will be interested in them.
Objectification, like traveling at the speed of light, is really hard to do. Male nudity is as prevalent as female nudity, but men respond differently to female nudity than women respond to male nudity. A fit woman in a bra will get more opposite sex attention than a fit man without a shirt. This is not objectification. This is human sex difference in physical attraction.
Huge disagreement. Maybe it is just me, but I never miss an opportunity to gaze at a fit man without his shirt on, and I don’t know any woman who will not notice one either.
Why are you disagreeing? A fit shirtless guys won’t cause a traffic jam. A fitwoman in a bra will stop traffic and cause camera phones to come out. The difference between like and love.
Or love and obsession.
Here’s a question, IDBY. If a fit woman in a bra will cause a traffic stop and phones, why is that? With all the porn on the internet and beyond, why take a photo of a woman. It is very very easy for me to come up with a reason, but I’d like to hear yours.
Also, men without shirts are pretty common. No shock in seeing a man without a shirt. Seeing a woman without a shirt is much less common in a public area so I imagine it would cause some fuss. Heck you might even have women taking pictures.
If you had a man walking in a suit top, but only a thong underneath, I feel certain it would cause a fuss/pictures. Not necessarily because of lust, but because it is a case of a person acting completely outside the norms of what we accept in the public sphere.
I think you are comparing apples and oranges. A woman walking around in a bra is an unusual sight, and it is considered ‘undressed’. A man walking around undressed in public will cause a stir as well.
This lie that there is more female nudity in films and media in general needs to stop. Male nudity is a thousand times more exploited than female nudity if you do honest comparisons.
Male chests are shown everywhere, while female chests are relegated to mostly rated R films.
Male buttocks are shown in PG rated films, while, again, to see female buttocks, you have to be 17 or accompanied by an adult.
There are hundred of rate R films that show penises, but there has never been a mainstream American film that has shown a vulva. Think about this: A Room with a View has a 3 minute scene of explicit full frontal male nudity and Netflix rates it appropriate for kid’s 11 and up.
The equivalent of female breasts is the male chest. The male chest is every bit as beautiful and sexy and female breasts, so you should treat them equally if equality is your goal. The equivalent of the penis is the vulva, so please stop devaluing male genitalia.
Correct.
Exactly
I don’t think male genitalia was being devalued by the author (quite the opposite, in fact), but I agree that if we’re talking about that level of exposure in films, I can’t recall *any* mainstream films that reveal the vulva, even in passing detail. I don’t get out to movies much any more, so maybe the trend has changed, but any shot I can remember of full frontal female nudity was so fleeting or masked by pubic hair that no detail whatsoever is visible. (E.g., Sharon Stone in “Basic Instinct” or Dana Delaney in “Exit to Eden”.) I know genital grooming trends leave more bare now, but I still can’t recall seeing even a frontal crease in a mainstream film, much less protruding labia. Yet, because of imprecise language that I’ve written about before, many people remember those fleeting shots as “showing her vagina”.
I think the equivalent of a flaccid penis in mainstream is that fleeting, hair-obscured crotch shot that’s occasionally shown of women. Showing vulva would be more like showing an erect penis, neither of which happen much. I don’t know the stats, so I might be wildly off, but it seems to me like the frequency of full-frontal shots aren’t all that skewed by gender, but for the men, it’s rarely in a sexual situation (because otherwise they’d be expected to be aroused), and for women, it almost always is. So, you get a bunch of naked British guys frolicking asexually, but Sharon Stone distracts her interrogators by flashing her (undetailed) crotch.
I should add that I don’t think a bare or visible vulva is “explicitly aroused” in the way that an erect penis is, but it’s treated that way in film and print. Soft porn publications are known to “heal to a single crease” [WARNING! Link isn't porn, but it's NSFW], because that crease is the line between soft and “hard” or “explicit”. I think this sucks, and can have tragic influence on body image (e.g. labiaplasties by women who think they aren’t “normal”) but that’s why I think we don’t see vulvas on screen. There’s no comparable treatment that I know of to make sure flaccid penises conform to some “decent” range, like digitally adding foreskin to make sure the glans is discreetly tucked out of view, feeding a thriving industry in foreskin restoration surgery to get insecure men looking “normal” again.
Back to the original point, I don’t really get the impression that men’s bodies aren’t revealed quite a bit already – it’s just that the only parts that the ratings boards consider sexual or titillating are butts and penises, while breasts are an automatic R. That’s about cultural prudery and perception, not who’s revealing more skin onscreen. Shirtless guys play beach volleyball, it’s PG. (Think “Top Gun”) Same scene with girls in bikinis, probably R, but PF-13 at a minimum. Take those girls’ tops off, R for sure. Skin’s getting shown all around, it just gets rated different.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0493459/ This Film Is Not Yet Rated. Great Doc.
“There’s no comparable treatment that I know of to make sure flaccid penises conform to some “decent” range”
Penis size enhancement? Such as that sold in the ads on this very site?
Hm… I realize now that I didn’t quite get the thrust of your comment. (heeee….)
Nevermind.
“I don’t think male genitalia was being devalued by the author…”
The genitals are our most intimate, personal body part. By making the false equivalence between female breasts and penises, you’re implying that vulvas are more intimate/personal than penises. That IS devaluing the penis.
“I think the equivalent of a flaccid penis in mainstream is that fleeting, hair-obscured crotch shot that’s occasionally shown of women. Showing vulva would be more like showing an erect penis, neither of which happen much.”
This is an even more egregious devaluation than what the author was suggesting. So now the penis is equivalent to female pubic hair? There is no justification for that comparison. Showing an engorged clitoris is the equivalent of an erect penis; there is no reason to make these bizarre, anatomically incorrect analogies when male and female bodies are so similar other than to desexualize and devalue men for sexist reasons.
“So, you get a bunch of naked British guys frolicking asexually, but Sharon Stone distracts her interrogators by flashing her (undetailed) crotch.”
So why aren’t there scenes in PG rated films that show vulvas and other types of female nudity in non-sexual situations? If the skinny dipping scene in A Room with a View depicted females instead of males, there would have been numerous moments when you would be able to fully see their vulvas. I’ve seen plenty of scenes in movies that were non-sexual that used creative editing to hide women’s breasts, buttocks, and vulvas, but weren’t nearly as careful with the men. Why is this acceptable?
“Take those girls’ tops off, R for sure. Skin’s getting shown all around, it just gets rated different.”
But that’s completely unjustifiable; that’s the point I’m trying to make. Instead of making the argument that breast = penises in order to promote the idea that men aren’t getting naked enough, we should be arguing from the standpoint of equality and promote the idea that female breasts are no more sexual than male chests and that the vulva is not this sacred, secretive thing that needs to be hidden or automatically deemed sexual.
You’re strangely difficult to agree with, in that I agree and already said as much with much of what you’re saying here. I agreed breasts aren’t comparable to penises. I also wrote, “I should add that I don’t think a bare or visible vulva is “explicitly aroused” in the way that an erect penis is, but it’s treated that way in film and print,” which shows that I make a distinction between aroused and unaroused genitalia, but you still felt it necessary to remind me that the counterpart to an erect penis is an erect clitoris. I linked to an article about the odd way that censors sexualize *all* views of vulvas, even the unaroused ones, and how they don’t treat penises the same. I definitely did not say that penises are equivalent in value to female pubic hair, but observed that censors seem to treat them as roughly equivalent on the obscenity scale. I think that’s an absurd practice, as do you, apparently. I think people (not just censors) tend to automatically sexualize breasts in a way that typically doesn’t happen to men’s chests, but I haven’t said I think it *should* be that way.
So what is it we’re really disagreeing about? I can only spot one difference to nitpick in your reply. When nude women frolic in the manner of the men of Room With a View, and those women don’t have shaved vulvas, I don’t think the camera would be picking up any vulvar detail on those wide shots, comparable to penises that can be seen flapping and swinging around from a distance. I admit it’s been a long time since I saw that movie so maybe I’m forgetting close-ups, but a bush-covered vulva is not easily revealed by long shots, no matter how much they frolic. On the other hand, a shaved vulva tends to reveal at a minimum a crease. I can’t recall seeing that kind of full-frontal shot in any mainstream movie, though I can recall having seen several of the bush-covered variety. Then again, I don’t get out to many movies these days – is it happening? Are shaved women actresses (with or without top billing) doing full-frontal shots, even just getting dressed or out of the shower or something?
Regardless of what I personally consider to qualify as “genitals in an aroused state”, I believe ratings boards would treat as equally pornographic the RWOV scene had it been shot with erections, and the Sharon Stone scene if she’d simply been shaved so that a crease and inner labia were visible, despite no arousal on her part. That’s partly because the signs of an aroused vulva are not so easy to see in fleeting glimpses, but it’s also a cultural way of automatically sexuallizing women’s bodies more than we do men’s, which I think is what the original author, you, and I are saying in different ways. We all think that’s out of balance, no?
Not a fan of this article. In general, it’s rather annoying when someone writes about their own personal preferences and then uses the plural “we” to feign some kind of common agreement. There are certainly women who prefer scrawny men instead of broad-shouldered, v-shaped ones.
And as an European (German) man: Speedos are not that popular anymore, they are mostly worn by little boys and old men.
I hear you about the “we.” I have no defense other than to say this is excerpted from a book that intentionally uses “we” to represent the female population while fully understanding that “we” don’t all feel the same way about everything. It’s a relationship advice book following that particular format of other relationship advice books (making the assumption that men and women all fall into neat categories), but rather than playing to Mars and Venus stereotypes or encouraging false behavior to snag a mate, I try to dispel stereotypes and encourage fair treatment and greater understanding. The “we,” in the larger scope of the message, will – I hope – be forgiven.
Also, about the Speedos – didn’t know that! It’s been a while since I was in Germany. Thanks for the correction.
Sylvia,
I’m going to assume you’re talking about enjoying particular KINDS of male nudity in film and television and magazines, not ALL forms of male nudity. I’m sure you find some things more attractive than others and this is not a universal celebration of all male bodies, since most people would say that some things really are kind of gross. (Surely SOME things are yucky….) The title suggests that women love all things about male bods, but that’s not really true.
I don’t know if women are more picky about how men look than men are about how women look, but it’s not like all male nudity is equally appreciated on-screen.
I will start to believe women have gotten over the “boys are gross” thing when I begin to see more actual chest hair or back hair on a male romantic lead or see male body hair AT ALL in a magazine. How’s that great love of male bodies deal with back hair, by the way?
[Why yes, I do have an autobiographical axe to grind, why do you ask? : - ) ]
Personally, I love body hair on a man, provided he takes the care to maintain it. And I don’t really mind it on women either – unshaven legs, underarms and pubic areas don’t bother me. But that’s just one person’s subjective opinion. I love men with beards and mustaches, but I know a lot of women who don’t because of the scratchy factor (I think a 5 o’clock shadow is scratchier than a full beard!). My dad had a full beard and mustache for my entire life – I’ve never seen him clean-shaven, except in old photos of him. My uncles all have facial hair of some kind. Many of my male teachers did, too. Maybe that’s why I love it, it’s been present on most of the men I’ve loved all my life.
It wasn’t that long ago that hairy men were sex symbols. I was born in ’87 so I can’t speak to the 70s from experience, but from what I’ve seen of 70s media, hairiness was not all that uncommon. The physical tastes of pop culture vary over time. Nowadays, for women, being tan and thin are marks of beauty, but skip back a couple centuries and it was the plump, pale women who were considered beautiful. Plump and pale means you’re wealthy enough to feed yourself well (or to excess) and wealthy enough that you don’t have to work out in the sun to make a living, you can stay inside and stay pale. As a pale-ass redhead with a little extra body weight, this is validating (kidding!). Maybe in another few decades, the hairless man will fall out of fashion again.
You’re right, there’s a generational thing at work when it comes to male hair. (Joe Namath posing in a pantyhose commercial in the 1960’s would be good example of an earlier aesthetic.)
I’m hoping that the hairless, chiseled sixpack male torso on the cover of every men’s magazine will someday become “so 2012” that people will make fun of it, reject it as unfashionable, and the aesthetic will swing the other way. Hirsute is the new sexy, like pink is the new black. Dare to dream….
“I’m going to assume you’re talking about enjoying particular KINDS of male nudity in film and television and magazines, not ALL forms of male nudity. I’m sure you find some things more attractive than others and this is not a universal celebration of all male bodies, since most people would say that some things really are kind of gross.”
I did say we’re less interested in bodies we find unattractive.
No one likes every single thing about every single thing. My point was (is) men’s bodies are just as beautiful as women’s bodies as far as human bodies go (as are the in-between bodies, but this piece was written for men in a book directed at men, so there were places I wasn’t all-inclusive).
“The title suggests that women love all things about male bods, but that’s not really true.”
The title doesn’t suggest that at all, but you’re right: it’s not true that all women love all things about all male bodies.
“I don’t know if women are more picky about how men look than men are about how women look, but it’s not like all male nudity is equally appreciated on-screen.”
There’s bad-naked for us all.
“I will start to believe women have gotten over the “boys are gross” thing when I begin to see more actual chest hair or back hair on a male romantic lead or see male body hair AT ALL in a magazine. How’s that great love of male bodies deal with back hair, by the way?”
Body hair isn’t male-specific. Many men who say they love women’s bodies would be less quick to say they love the unshaved woman’s body.
“[Why yes, I do have an autobiographical axe to grind, why do you ask? : - ) ]”
Ha.
Hey, I have body hair, too.
Didn’t you get the joke in Mike Meyers. “Austin Powers” movies. Where as a sex symbol of the 60′s, he had that big swatch of chest hair. Next time you’re on a crowded street ,or boardwalk ,or any such place, If there happens to be a real”beefcake” type there, Just observe how many sets of female eyes venture”south” for a look. If you pay attention, you’ll be surprised.
To be honest, I don’t really think penises are beautiful. They’re kinda funny-looking. So are scrotums. Like Erin above, I’m not particularly enthused about seeing actor’s penises, or the penis of any man I’m not sexually involved with. I agree that penises are not as common in movies/TV as breasts, but that doesn’t mean I want to see more of them. If anything, I wish breasts weren’t so sexualized, because as others have pointed out, they’re not genitals. I wish women didn’t have TWO “private places” (to use the kiddie language I grew up with) to cover when men only have one.
For the record, I don’t really think vulvas are pretty to look at either. The mons pubis can be quite lovely, but I wouldn’t say the same of most vulvas. They, too, are kinda funny-looking. I’m not clamoring to see more vulvas OR penises in popular media.
Butts are great, though, on either sex. Forget full-frontal male nudity, I’d rather see him from behind!
Maybe it’s not really the sexualization of breasts that’s the problem KKZ, just the over use of using them to media that is often cheap and degrading.
I think breasts are beautiful but I’m tired with the narrow ideals about how my breasts are suppose to look to be “worthy” of “sexualness”. Mine are quite small and If I go by the media and what alot of men pander to, I’m already “less” of a woman because of that. I’m also kind of tired of hearing all the euphemisms men have for female breasts that I’m apparently suppose to think is either “cute” or “sexy”. They aren’t either. They are just annoying. It’s not sexy that grown men rather call your breasts “insert breast euphemism here” then just calling them “breasts”. The worst one to date that I have been hearing more and more is “fun bags”. Who thinks of this stuff?
I too appreciate breasts, although I’m fine calling them boobs, just because that’s the most common word I heard growing up. Euphemisms don’t bother me *that* much (though I agree, fun bags is kind of ridiculous). There are just as many stupid euphemisms for penis as there are for breasts – schlong, wang, dong, weiner, doodle, member (member of what exactly?), organ, dick, cock…take your pick.
As for breasts, my own are on the larger side, but that doesn’t always make me feel sexy, or like “more” of a woman. I like playing up the cleavage when it’s appropriate, but on a day-to-day basis, they’re just impractical. They cause me back pain (a reduction is in my future, if and when I can ever afford it), they make it hard to shop for bras, swimsuits and anything that buttons/zips in the front, and sometimes they draw more attention than I’d really like to get. They’re the only thing about my body that I’m actively self-conscious about. All the calories I’ve burned trying to lose weight were really burned in an effort to shrink them through exercise instead of surgery. (No success there, sadly.)
Personally, I like small breasts on women. (Maybe I’m just jealous.) But what’s more important to me than size is if they look natural. Obvious implants are a turn-off for me, in porn and in real life. Not because of any particular opinion of plastic surgery or anything like that, but when the skin is stretched so tight over the implants, tighter than any of the skin around them, when they sit up higher than they should or are too perfectly symmetrical – sorry, but ick. That’s why a lot of the women in mainstream porn don’t do much for me, they’re too artificial – bleached, tanned, nipped and tucked (or “enhanced”) so much that they look like Anime characters.
I will say that almost all my female friends agree that porn men are NOT sexually attractive, at least not in most mainstream hetero porn (I can’t speak for them, but I’ve found alternative sources). I admit we laugh at them – their hairlessness, the way they hiss when they breathe, the way they move around with swagger like they’re hot stuff, their weirdo penises…yes, we laugh, mostly because these are caricatures of men, the same way the above-mentioned actresses are caricatures of women. These depictions are so absurd I can hardly believe this is a real person who leads a “normal” life when not f*cking someone on camera. Porn is clearly fiction – no one should use it as any kind of realistic measurement of masculinity or femininity.
You’re complaint about breast size sounds alot like guy complaining about penis size. Yes that’s right, I actually have a “hung” friend who by the time he was in his 30′s, was tired of the women hunting him down and just wanted to settle down with “the right one”. (True story, I swear!). Hey Erin, understand that some guys get their kicks grossing out “chicks”. Yeah, their the ones that can’t get a date(or at leeast a second one). I have however, been a “fly on the wall” at a table of women (who had consumed their fair share of alcahol) talking about their men’s “junk” and never heard the word penis used in the discription once.
Well the euphemisms bother me.
And I agree that everyone knows porn is fiction. And on a logical level, everyone knows that it’s not a realistic measurement of masculinity and femininity. Except when it is. Because despite this, it is still held to an ideal we socially buy into. Whether we like to admit that or not. How do I know we buy into it? Because while people logically know it’s fiction, it still turns people on. There is still a part of the brain or sexuality, that buys into the fiction enough to cause a physical reaction in someone. People are still asking their partners to actually *do* things they see in porn. Dress in ways that they have seen in porn. So when does something stop being fiction and turn real? We got a culture soaked in porn. We all know it’s not real. Yet many people do infact try to emulate it in their bedroom and they are still turned on by it. It’s a blurry line if you ask me. And with more porn around, and more young people growing up on like never before, that line only blurs more. The sad thing is that porn tells men their sexuality is brutish and boarder line mean and selfish. And we all know it’s not. But young boys will look at it and think “well this is how a man acts”. And young girls will think “well I deserve to be called names or treated like that because that’s what *he* wants. It might not make me feel good but apparently that’s what sexy is.” But before long, she’s linking those words and emotions to sex and it’s turning her on too. She learns that she is just the object in the exchange. I just don’t think it’s so clear cut anymore about porn being fiction. Especially when people admit they watch porn to get ideas. On a logical level we know it’s not. But just look at much mainstream porn has become.
But I do agree with you KKZ..breasts are beautiful in all shapes and sizes but fake ones make women look more cartoons then actual people. I just want to know why some men seem to need cartoonish depictions of women. Or why some women feel they need to be this over the top female ideal.
Bobbt, I don’t doubt there aren’t women that can’t be digusting talking about men’s junk. But I don’t know many multi-dollar billion dollar industries that are built on calling men names and getting off to it to the extent I see with the porn industry toward women. I’m not trying to say women are better then men in anyway. Because I don’t believe that at all. I just think there is something going on with men that needs to be looked at. With raw honesty.
In my own circle of friends, we don’t talk about penises really. And if we have, it wasn’t to make derogatory comments about men’s penises, or to be like “oh check out the penis” on that guy.
Erin, I couldn’t agree more with you on the porn thing. And the fake breasts look OK as long as there covered, but when you see them “au natural” they look like tumors on the poor girls chest. I don’t find it a turn on and I can’t honestly tell you why others do. The “fly on the wall” story is true. While I have no doubt the alchacol consumed had much to do with the raunchiness of the conversation ,and while I’m not stating ALL women talk this way. Then again, not all MEN give crude names to female body parts.
What’s up with the seemingly random moderation on this site?
Random moderation again.
No shit. I just got a post on chocolate pulled into moderation.
Typhon, I saw your comment, it also contained the word porn. Lisa Hickey has said before that porn is one of the words that triggers automatic moderation (which just means it goes into a queue to be scanned and approved). That’s fairly common on commenting forms – it’s a way to keep spambots from posting links to porn sites and such. @Idontbelieveyou, that’s probably what happened to you too, maybe not with that word but another.
Speaking as a person who used to moderate comments on newspaper websites, I can tell you this: there is no such thing as a moderator, or a team of moderators, sitting at their desks doing nothing but watching the comments roll in and giving them a thumbs-up or thumbs-down one by one. Almost no web-based company has the resources to do that. Even when I moderated, that was only part of my job, the rest was managing the published content on the site.
So what I’m saying is, don’t take it personally when you get marked for moderation. Take a chill pill and wait for your comment to show up, because if it is legit and doesn’t violate the rules of the site, it will show up.
This is exactly right. A team of people moderate on GMP, and we have day jobs and other things to do, so it isn’t always perfect. Also, certain “trigger words” put comments into moderation, as you say, and they do show up once it is verified not to be spam or hate speech. Lots of URL’s throw it into moderation too. I don’t know any sites that don’t struggle with how to manage high volume moderation with limited resources. It’s nothing personal, but maybe it feels that way sometimes.
I’ve been moderating today. I approved the comment.
I’ve noticed there’s another stupid but common dichotomy out there between beautiful and ugly. Too often people talk about a body part as either beautiful or disgusting, as if these were the only two choices, as if that’s black and white. It’s like, if we don’t say something is beautiful, then we must be undervaluing it and saying that it’s ugly, or we are not giving it the positive attention it deserves. It’s like, if we say it’s funny-looking, that must mean we have some kind of neurosis and we’re blinded by some sort of body taboo. If I don’t think of every part of the female anatomy as beautiful, I must be a misogynist. If I don’t think of every part of the male anatomy as beautiful, I must be a man-hating harpy.
Why can’t something just not be particularly beautiful nor particularly ugly? Why can’t something just be funny-looking – not an insult, it’s just funny-looking. People can even find something both ugly and beautiful at the same time. Or horrifying and beautiful at the same time, which people used to idealize as “sublime.” Aesthetic tastes are complicated that way.
I was glad to see this article didn’t really fall into that false either/or, but I just wanted to point out that these aren’t our only two choices. Very little about gender or body images or beauty actually boils down to only two categories.
Same with “big penis versus small penis,” as if that was _the_ central physical question. There’s also the question of penis shape, hardness, and texture, not to mention length as opposed to girth. There’s also the question of penis size relative to aperture – what, are we thinking all vaginas are the same size??
If women saw body parts the way men see body parts, then straight women and gay men would have similar attitudes to male nudity. They don’t. And straight men and lesbians? I can’t say, being neither, but I’ve never met a lesbian who talks about breasts all the time.
I have. I’ve seen some highly explicit lesbians in my day.
Why do you think I’m a gay man?!