The Male Form:

At the end of this post is a link to a video of a performance by two men (non-sexual) that fits the topic of “The Male Form.” I’m not sure what is the name of that type of performance – it might be called “Power Acrobatics,” but I think of it as “Slow Motion Acrobatics.” I like watching it and have watched it a number of times. It is approximately 8 minutes long. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBdAW8oe4CA&t=7s

Moonlight and Roses,

At the end of this paragraph is a link to a website entitled “Pervy Girl.” It contains photographs of men, many of whom are naked. Pervy Girl describes her website as “Random kinkery from a heterosexual woman’s POV” and writes “I want the male body to be the focus of my erotica or, at the very least, to have equal billing with the T & A. Clicking on the smiley face on the top of the web page will bring you to the main part of the site which, in addition to images of naked men has sexual images. http://pervygirl.tumblr.com/tagged/man-candy.

This is the fourth of this type of website that I have provided links to. Two of the others are:

“Naked Men, Happy Women” as suggested by its name it is a website devoted to images of naked men. In a way it is an online magazine showing many pictures of nude men and it also has articles dealing with sex. It can be found here: http://nakedmenhappywomen.org/.

The author of “Little Miss Shy” writes “Hello! I’m a 24 French girl. I love my boyfriend, music, art, nude and sex.”
http://misslittleshy.tumblr.com/

Moonlight and Roses,

One of my favorite works of art is Michelangelo’s “David” (1501 to 1504). The statue is large, 16 feet, 11.15 inches tall, weighs 12,478.12 pounds (more than six tons) and is carved from Carrara Marble. Originally the piece of marble it was curved from was 19 feet tall.

I feel this is a beautiful work of art and that the model would have had a beautiful body, but my feeling for this work of art goes beyond its beauty. I see in David’s face an expression of supreme confidence and concentration. He knows what he wants and he is certain that he will achieve it. His body shows the same confidence. The figure’s weight is on one leg as if he is prepared to move forward. He is ready for action and is not tense. His physic shows a young man who is fit and powerful, but also who could be agile. His hair is slightly long and wild. Despite the strength indicated I sense that his more powerful quality is his intelligence such as is revealed by his eyes and it has always appeared to me that David’s head is a little large for scale. He is noble.

Michelangelo depicted “David” completely nude. See here: https://s3.amazonaws.com/classconne...014-10-21_at_11013_am-149311DE949462A3B02.png). Despite that the young man’s nipples, penis and testis are clearly shown there is no shame about him. Nothing is hidden – everything is there to be seen. For me this heightens the feeling of confidence and nobility that I see in the figure. He is not ashamed of any of his attributes and I don’t feel he needs to be. The artist Gianlorenzo Bernini also did a statue of a nude David (1623), but this David is inexplicitly censored by some strange piece of cloth. To me this adds a sense of shame. See here: http://totallyhistory.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/David_Bernini_1623.jpg.

At the time that Michelangelo started his work it was to be placed high up on the Cathedral of Florence – the Duomo. However, when the work was completed it was decided not to place it up on the Cathedral, either because it was felt that it would be too difficult to lift it to that position or because of its beauty those in charge wanted it placed where it could be viewed close up (I think it was a little of both). In any case it was placed in the Piazza della Signoria, in the heart of the city and in front of the Palazzo Vecchio.

This suggests to me that the people of Florence were proud of this work and I can understand why. To me it seems a representation of Renaissance man, a man who confidently looks to the future sure that he will be able to overcome all problems. It seems a visual symbol of Protagoras’ (fifth century BCE, Greek philosopher) claim that “Man is the measure of all things.” However despite its nobility I can’t imagine that such a large male nude would be placed in such a prominent place in the United States.

There are some unusual aspects regarding this statue of David and the biblical story from 1 Samuel 17. First and perhaps most important, in the bible David is too young to go to war. He is described as being little more than a boy. Donatello’s “David” (c. 1440) also a beautiful work, is of a boy see here: https://brownpassports.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/img_3063_2.jpg, but, Michelangelo’s statue is clearly of a young man, one who would definitely be suited to be a soldier. Whether or not Michelangelo actual meant his statue to be of the biblical David is interesting to me, but not that important. What I see as the primary significance of this work is not that it is of a biblical figure, but that it shows, at least to me, that the male nude can be depicted as being beautiful, noble and inspiring.

Moonlight and Roses,

MoonlightandRoses said:

it has always appeared to me that David’s head is a little large for scale

Click to expand...

You are aware that Michelangelo was a master of perspective and that the statue was sculpted so that a person regarding it from below, i.e. looking up at him, would experience the illusion of perfect proportions? This could be why you perceive his head to be "a little large" so the next time you have the opportunity, get down on your haunches and look up at him from the same angle Michelangelo intended that he should be seen!

MoonlightandRoses said:

Whether or not Michelangelo actual meant his statue to be of the biblical David is interesting to me, but not that important.

Click to expand...

Since he's carrying a sling, which is not the sort of weapon most soldiers of his era would use, I'd say it's a pretty good bet that it's David.

But I think your analysis is dead on.

Nicole, I didn’t realize or know that before. That’s cool! Here is a picture I found of David from that perspective and you are right: http://www.socialhistoryofart.com/photos/Art--16th-Century/MichelangeloDavidSitu4FromBelow Web.jpg. Thanks for the information.

Jehoram, Not only is Michelangelo’s David too old to be the Biblical David, but he (the statue) is also not circumcised. David being a boy is very important to the Biblical story. Originally the statue was to be placed atop the cathedral so it is reasonable that Michelangelo was commissioned to depict a Biblical figure. My thinking is that he may have wanted to depict a more universal figure. So, he put in the sling and a rock, but somewhat hid them with the sling being mostly on the back and the rock mostly covered in the right hand. You could be right, but I feel it is possible that Michelangelo meant the statue to be more universal than that of a particular figure in the Old Testament, but had to present it as the Biblical figure. In any case I experience it as a universal representation and not limited to David or even a soldier. Thanks for your comment.

To all, here is a picture of David with people around to show how big it is: http://www.villacampestri.com/components/com_wordpress/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/DavidShare.jpg. Viewing images of Michelangelo’s David excites me. When I read something or hear someone say that the male nude cannot be beautiful and that it is ugly because it has a penis, I look at this work of art and I know they are wrong.

Moonlight and Roses,

One of my favorite ballets is the short “Spectre De La Rose.” It is a par de duex with the female dancer first coming out in a white gown and the male dancer entering later. This link goes to a little over 8 minute video of the ballet with Nadja Saidakova and Vladimir Malakhov. I plan to write about it after the link so, if you never saw it before you may want to watch first:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRf8XRXDZaU

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

The female dancer has just returned from a ball where she was given a rose, whose sight and scent brings to her fond memories of the night. She then falls asleep and dreams of the Spirit of the Rose. This is a tour de force for the male dancer, but despite that I see the ballet as being about the young woman and her feelings. It is her memories and happiness that gives life to the rose. The costume worn by the male dancer is revealing and so I also see it as a glorification of the male form. I can easily imagine the male dancer to be naked.

Here is an image of a male dancer shown from the front and only dressed in a dance belt: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C16WnlBVIAE4bBN.jpg. I’m not sure who he is, but he looks to me like the male dancer in the video at a younger age.

Moonlight and Spectre De La Rose

Music Videos and Male Bodies

Here is a list of five Music Videos featuring the male body.

NSFW Warning!!! topless men, male nipples shown!!! Enjoy!!!

Connection by Elastica 2:21 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwEVvRGgb8Y

Physical by Olivia Newton-John 3:43 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWz9VN40nCA

You’re Still the One by Shania Twain 3:21 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNZH-emehxA&index=4&list=RDZJL4UGSbeFg

Man I feel like a Woman by Shania Twain 3:56 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJL4UGSbeFg

Call Me Maybe by Carly Rae Jepsen 3:19 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWNaR-rxAic

Active and Aggressive Women, Passive Men

Moonlight and Roses,

Male “T & A”?

There is female “T & A”, but what about male “T & A”? Now men don’t really have “Ts”, but they do have Pects so maybe it is more correct to say male “P & A”. There are differences between female and male bodies, but how much difference? Well women have nipples, but men also have nipples. Women can produce milk, but in some cases it appears that men can also. See Scientific American here: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/strange-but-true-males-can-lactate/. But what I want to write about here has to do more with the appearance of the breasts. The main reason female breasts are larger than male breasts is the amount of fatty tissue. It is my understanding that the amount of milk a woman can produce is not determined by the size of a women’s breast. Men can also have fatty tissue in their breasts, but pects refer to pectoral muscles which are muscles and not fatty tissue.

Next is the “A” there is nothing substantially different between the female and male backsides. Men’s may be more muscular and thinner than female’s on average, but that is not necessarily true for all individuals.

So, we will now return to appearance and in particular attractiveness. Are female “T & A” inherently more attractive than male “P & A?” This is a question I plan to deal with in the future, with pictures.

Moonlight and Roses,

MoonlightandRoses said:

Men can also have fatty tissue in their breasts, but pects refer to pectoral muscles which are muscles and not fatty tissue.

Click to expand...

That reminds me of one of Groucho Marx's classic lines. When asked if he'd seen the latest movie of Victor Mature (the forties equivalent of Arnold Schwarzenegger), he replied. "Nah. I never go see any movie where the tits on the guy are bigger than the tits on the girl."

So, we will now return to appearance and in particular attractiveness. Are female “T & A” inherently more attractive than male “P & A?” This is a question I plan to deal with in the future, with pictures.

Click to expand...

I think it depends mostly on the sexual orientation of the viewer. I've heard artists and photographers say that the female form is more interesting to portray, but most of them have been heterosexual males. (Interestingly, Michelangelo was gay, but he thought that penises were a blemish to a man's artistic form, so he deliberately made them undersized to fit with his vision of male perfection.)

I've always wondered if women would consider "dicks and asses" the equivalent of "tits and asses." There are a few similarities, in that there's a considerable range of sizes and, just as some men find big boobs a turn-on (and the bigger the better), others find more of a turn on in shape rather than size. The women I've talked to who enjoy seeing men's dicks tell me that it's not the size per se but the shape of the dick, particularly when erect, that they find interesting.

MoonlightandRoses said:

Here are two more comments from Charley H’s topic that I particularly like.

“By Mrs. Millwood: I believe that a fit male is every bit as desirable and beautiful as a female. But our American culture does not tolerate exploiting the male body nearly as much as it tolerates exploiting the female body.
“Consider Abercrombie and Fitch, one of the few commercial outlets that does exploit the male body. People rallied against them because they had beautiful fit males standing shirtless in front of their stores.
“TV commercials do not display fit males nearly like they do females. I cannot imagine the uproar there would be if males were shown as scantily clad or suggestive as females.
“I enjoy a fit young male wearing a square cut speedo at the beach. Could you imagine the outrage if they were shown like that? But why do that? Women are shown wearing bikinis in commercials all the time.
“American culture (or at least the ad execs) like to show males as bumbling fat slobs - the anti sexy. And as long as males are in charge, they want to keep it this way. It's less threatening for them.

By Legerdemer: “I'm very much an equal opportunity appreciator of beauty. And beauty is affected by so many things other than the mere physical manifestation of some societal norm, whatever it might be. Character coming through trumps a vapid face and beautiful body most every time.”

Tom,

Click to expand...

Male homophobia is a very interesting topic and I could write you a volume about it. Back in the day I worked as a male exotic dancer in a Club which featured "live striptease love shows." Those were deals where a male and female would engage in what was essentially, an extremely explicit erotic ballet of sorts. One of my main performing partners got me up to speed on clientele. She told me "foreigners are by far the best fans and clients and also older American couples." Watch out for young American males as they are going to be threatened by you and hate you like no other entity on this earth." Avoid them at all cost!"

Jehoram, interesting post, in particular your comment “. . . it depends mostly on the sexual orientation of the viewer.” This can be thought of in two ways. First, how people feel about the female and male bodies in our current culture. I believe that for most males in our current culture it would largely depend on sexual orientation, but I am not sure if that would be the case for females. It may be possible that most straight women would feel that the female breast is more attractive than the male breast. However, I purposely put in the word “inherently” since I was thinking about whether it is in the human DNA to see the one or the other (the female or male bodies) as being more attractive. I am pretty sure that in my writings on this site I have never referred to sexual attractiveness. This was done on purpose. In my opinion seeing something as being beautiful or attractive, even in the case of a nude body, does not mean that the viewer is sexually attracted to it. I believe that there are good evolutionary reasons for people to be attracted to each other for non-sexual reasons. That would include females being attracted to other females and males being attracted to other males. Further it seems to me that there are good evolutionary reasons for people to be attracted to others who are physically fit. Strong and firm pects and strong and firm backsides would be a visual sign that a person is physically fit and therefore I believe that humans of either sex are born with a predisposition to tend to find men with strong and firm pects and backsides attractive and in some cases beautiful in an asexual way. So while the relative inherent (based on DNA and not culture) attractiveness may depend on the sexual orientation of the viewer to some extent I’m not sure how much that is.

I don’t know what most women feel about this, but I do not consider penises to be the equivalent of female breasts or nipples. The equivalent of a penis is a clitoris and a vulva.

In my option, while there are differences between the female and male bodies in how they look that difference is now exaggerated by many due to cultural reasons. A glance at the picture in the upper left of your post shows to me how similar female and male bodies can look.

Thanks for the quote from Groucho.

Applc, thanks for commenting. Male homophobia is interesting. I feel the “phobia” is stronger against male homosexuals than against female homosexuals. I also believe that homophobia is one of the factors which influences how many, perhaps most people in this current feel about the male form.

Moonlight and Roses,

Are female “T & A” inherently more attractive than male “P & A.” First we’ll look at the male “As.”

Here is a positive article about the male behind by Esther. It is from her website “Naked Men, Happy Women.” There are pictures of naked male tushies at that link and all others in this post: http://nakedmenhappywomen.org/why-girls-dig-male-ass/.

This link is to a picture of “David’s” booty: https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/2d/7c/0d/2d7c0d4fde5236dd1af89ddbd244693a.jpg.

Next we have this Ballet Dancer Booty pinterest site. Mostly men in tights: https://www.pinterest.com/source/balletdancerbooty.tumblr.com/

The best is left for last. Here 13 Warwick Rowers that is 26 bare cheeks: http://i.huffpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/359403/slide_359403_4006439_free.jpg

And here is a video, just over one minute, of the Warwick Rowers 2017 Calendar Promo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbBsTZmGVRU

Next we’ll uncover the male chest.

Moonlight and Roses,

In this post we’ll look at the male chest.

Here is a link to an article by Christina Cauterucci entitled “U.S. Male Gymnasts Want to Compete Topless and Who Are We to Stop Them?” NSFW warning pictures of bare men’s chests and nipples at this link and the others in this post. http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_facto...nasts_want_to_compete_topless_we_say_yes.html. She writes “Going shirtless might not be going far enough, in fact. . . Booty shorts or briefs would be a welcome next step from our men in red, white, and pecs.”

This link goes to a video “Women Talk About Men’s Nipples” (just over 2 minutes):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSx13Zf-HDU&t=4

Continuing on here is a music video (just over 3 minutes) of the Abercrombie and Fitch Guys, with Carly Rae Jepsen singing “Call Me Maybe:” https://vimeo.com/58910727

And here is a picture of “David’s” pects and nipples: https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/6c/13/1e/6c131ea7cb7d1bfde231807c92dc06b2.jpg

Next is a picture of a modern David – Isaish Mustafa the Old Spice Man: https://i.ytimg.com/vi/owGykVbfgUE/maxresdefault.jpg.

And last, but not least what men’s nipples are good for? Well here are two images that answer that question: http://i1.cdn2b.image.pornhub.phncdn.com/videos/201504/23/47991621/original/(m=eqgl9daaaa)9.jpg and http://thumb-v.xhcdn.com/t/639/320/1_4170639.jpg.

Moonlight and Roses,

Earlier I wrote that “I believe that there are good evolutionary reasons for people to be attracted to each other for non-sexual reasons.” My reasons for this belief are based on three observations.

1. Humans are physically weak compared to other animals of the same or in some cases smaller size. We cannot run as fast as many animals and we do not have fangs, claws or venom to help catch food or protect ourselves.

2. Human babies are very helpless. It takes approximately a year for human babies to walk and even then they are still pretty much helpless.

3. Humans can talk.

Because of these three factors, I believe, it is crucial for survival that humans group together in order to hunt, defend each other and to take case of babies and other children. Plus there would be no benefit for humans to be able to talk if they did not have someone to talk to. So, it appears to me that people who grouped with others had more of a chance to survive and to pass along their genes. Thus an individual who had a characteristic that discouraged them from grouping with others would be at a disadvantage in regard to surviving and passing along their genes, while an individual who had a characteristic that encouraged them to group with others would be at an advantage in regard to surviving and passing along their genes. One characteristic that would discourage an individual from grouping with others would be if that individual was born with a predisposition to see other humans as being ugly and a characteristic that would encourage an individual to group with others would be if that individual was born with a predisposition to see other humans as being attractive. While individuals could experience other humans as ugly or attractive in different ways, one way would be to experience other humans as visually ugly or visually attractive. Because of this, I believe that, those genes that led to an individual being born with a predisposition to experience other humans as visually ugly would tend to be weeded out of the gene pool, while those genes that led to an individual being born with a predisposition to experience other humans as visually attractive would tend to become stronger and more wide spread. Now, this attraction would be asexual and therefore would include females being attracted to other females and males being attracted to other males, as well as people of different sexes being attracted to each other. So, I believe that there are good evolutionary reasons for people to be born with a predisposition to view each other as attractive for non-sexual reasons.

Moonlight and Roses,

MoonlightandRoses said:

Earlier I wrote that “I believe that there are good evolutionary reasons for people to be attracted to each other for non-sexual reasons.” My reasons for this belief are based on three observations.

1. Humans are physically weak compared to other animals of the same or in some cases smaller size. We cannot run as fast as many animals and we do not have fangs, claws or venom to help catch food or protect ourselves.

2. Human babies are very helpless. It takes approximately a year for human babies to walk and even then they are still pretty much helpless.

3. Humans can talk.

Because of these three factors, I believe, it is crucial for survival that humans group together in order to hunt, defend each other and to take case of babies and other children. Plus there would be no benefit for humans to be able to talk if they did not have someone to talk to. So, it appears to me that people who grouped with others had more of a chance to survive and to pass along their genes. Thus an individual who had a characteristic that discouraged them from grouping with others would be at a disadvantage in regard to surviving and passing along their genes, while an individual who had a characteristic that encouraged them to group with others would be at an advantage in regard to surviving and passing along their genes. One characteristic that would discourage an individual from grouping with others would be if that individual was born with a predisposition to see other humans as being ugly and a characteristic that would encourage an individual to group with others would be if that individual was born with a predisposition to see other humans as being attractive. While individuals could experience other humans as ugly or attractive in different ways, one way would be to experience other humans as visually ugly or visually attractive. Because of this, I believe that, those genes that led to an individual being born with a predisposition to experience other humans as visually ugly would tend to be weeded out of the gene pool, while those genes that led to an individual being born with a predisposition to experience other humans as visually attractive would tend to become stronger and more wide spread. Now, this attraction would be asexual and therefore would include females being attracted to other females and males being attracted to other males, as well as people of different sexes being attracted to each other. So, I believe that there are good evolutionary reasons for people to be born with a predisposition to view each other as attractive for non-sexual reasons.

Moonlight and Roses,

Click to expand...

You are exactly correct sir. Lesbianism is far more accepted in mainstream American society than male homosexuality. I believe a great deal of lesbianism is not legitimate but more rather a massive outreach of feminine narcissism that has gripped America. It is now considered "chic" for young women to declare "I am bi-curious!" I don't buy into it at all. It is nothing more than an attention getter. Attention is what women crave and to an extent, this is ok but here in the last 15 years or so, it has become concerning to me. You really see the manifestations and results of rampant feminine narcissism in the live erotic entertainment industry. By and large, the male has allowed himself to be nearly completely eliminated from the stage. Those that are lucky enough to be on a stage with a female look like pathetic lap dogs. I've even seen one Burlesque couple where the male impersonates a monkey! I am ashamed and saddened that we males have sexually degraded ourselves in such a manner. In my day the male form was considered erotically beautiful especially when interacting with a female. Now, those days are done! Go watch an adagio today and the guy is in a pair of stupid tight boxers. WTF! Hell, why doesn't he just perform in PJ's? Back in the day we wore G's and showed our beautiful masculinity. Our female audience members sure weren't gripping!

Applc, first thank you for your strong endorsement of my post and I agree that lesbianism is far more accepted in mainstream American society than male homosexuality. Now I will be disagreeing with you.

For at least the last six thousand years and even in a major way today men are and have been determining the norms, values and customs of the more complex societies (the civilizations). While things have improved recently women have to various degrees been second class citizens in each of those civilizations. I plan to delve much more into this, not in my next comment, but after that. As to women being bi-curious I feel that is a natural part of being human. This includes both many women’s interest in lesbian porn and their appreciation of the female body. In my opinion what is unnatural is many men’s phobia about gay male porn and their discomfort with viewing the male body. This was an important part of the post I wrote just earlier to this one. I see the imbalance in movies with male centered movies being much more prevalent then female centered movies a sign of male narcissism and male attention getting. Further I believe that the male nude is becoming more appreciated and earlier in this thread I gave reasons for my belief in that. What is ironic is that at the same time that women and men seem to becoming more appreciative of the nude male body, young men, at least in America, are becoming more modest in revealing their bodies as shown by the increase in size, since the 1970s, of the bathing suits worn by young men. My motto is more films about interesting women and more images of beautiful naked men.

Moonlight and Roses,

It appears to me that human females and males are more similar, in some ways, than are the females and males of many other species of animals. One way is that both women and men can be interested in and desire sexual intercourse whether or not reproduction is possible. This is at first appears strange in that engaging in intercourse when it is impossible for reproduction to occur would seem a waste of time and energy. In many other species females are only interested in sexual intercourse when they are fertile and males are only attracted to females when the females are fertile. I plan to write about this more later.

Second, human babies and children are extremely helpless and as such they require as much support as possible. In many species after impregnating the female the male goes off never to be seen again. This is wasteful and I feel it would never do for a species in which the offspring are so helpless for so long a time as in the case of humans. So, in my opinion in order for the species to have survive men as well as women would have to have been born with a predisposition to want to parent. This may not always be the father, in some cases it could be an uncle or grandfather of the child or even an unrelated male. So, human females are similar to males as they could be interested in sex at all time and human males are similar to females as they could have, at least, some interest in parenting.

Now I’ll go on to relative heights of women and men. In the United States and pretty much everywhere in the world the average man is approximately five inches taller than the average woman, a 7% to 8% difference. That is a difference, but I do not feel it is a huge difference. But what is more important is that individuals differ in height so despite that the average man is five inches taller than the average woman there are women who are taller than men. So what is the case for the average is not always the case for the individual.

Well what about the actual sex organs. Most of the female sex organs correspond with a male sex organ. This is called homologies of the sex organs. For example the Clitoris Glans corresponds with the Penis Glans (the head of the penis), although I have also seen this written as the Clitoris corresponds with the Penis. The Outer Vaginal Lips corresponds with the Scrotum, the Testis corresponds with the Ovaries and the Clitoral Hood corresponds with the Foreskin. Also, the Inner Vaginal Lips, the Clitoral Shaft and possibly the G-Spot correspond with the Penile Shaft. These different organs arise from the same primitive organs as the fetus develops. In particular the Clitoris Glans and the Penis Glans are similar in that they both provide pleasure. In regard to what might be called a secondary sex organ, the breasts and nipples, the male nipples are basically immature female nipples.

Finally there is the appearance of the female and male bodies. There are differences in their appearances, but I don’t see the differences as being huge. Certainly not large enough that one would be considered ugly and the other beautiful. Further while there are differences in the average female and male, individuals within the same sex also differ.

Moonlight and Roses,

PS, I thought of this after I posted: It appears that men can lactate see here https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/strange-but-true-males-can-lactate/ and that women can ejaculate during orgasm.

Earlier I wrote “I believe that there are good evolutionary reasons for people to be born with a predisposition to view each other as attractive for non-sexual reasons.” Also I wrote “this attraction would be asexual and therefore would include females being attracted to other females and males being attracted to other males, as well as people of different sexes being attracted to each other.” So, why do we now have a situation where some women are considered beautiful, but the term beautiful is rarely if ever applied to men, where many people, both female and male, consider the female nude body to be more beautiful than the male and some women and men feel that the male nude is ugly?

To start with people are products of their time and place. That is people tend to accept as valid the social norms, values, morals, customs, likes and dislikes and even fashions that are present in the society that they are born into. Furthermore, these people tend to pass along these social norms, values, morals, likes and dislikes and even fashions to the next generation. This could be done in many different ways. It could be implicit or explicit; it could be done by writers, artists, politicians, religious leaders, military leaders, the owners of businesses, parents and others. So, not only are people products of their time and place, but they also tend to pass along their beliefs and feelings about things to the next generation and so the next generation is not only a product of their own time and place, but to some degree a product of the past. That is there is a social inertia so that when conditions change beliefs and feeling change after a lag. However this is only a tendency, so things do change, but slowly.

Getting back to the question of why the female nude is considered by many (maybe most) to be more beautiful than the male nude I will look at four factors that were prevalent in what can be called “Western Culture” during the 19th century. These four factors are as follows:

1. Women were treated as second class citizens.

2. Husbands have to trust their wives as to whether their children are really their children.

3. Nudity was seen as being vulgar.

4. The phobia concerning male homosexuality.

(To be continued)

Moonlight and Roses,

Continued from comment #144

The most consequential of the four factors listed in comment # 144, just above, is that women were treated as second class citizens. Going along with this it was very difficult for most women to earn a significant amount of money. They could work in a factory or as maids or as prostitutes, but there was little chance of advancement. Many times women were also restricted in the amounts they could inherent. So, as a consequence most women were financially dependent on men. Generally these men were their fathers or husbands, but they could also be their brothers or some other relative.

While most women and men desired to be married and to attract a partner, women had a very strong additional reason to marry due to the difficulty a woman had earning as much as a man. So, women had to try harder to attract a husband and to keep a husband once married. One way to do this is to dress attractively. In the 19th century both men and women dressed attractively, but women did more so. This does not mean that every time a woman went out she was looking to attract a husband, but it happened enough so that it became fashionable for women to try and look as beautiful as possible. On the other hand men had the advantage that they generally were able to earn more than women and so they tended to try and show this by dressing in more practical clothes; pants and darker colors.

Further being treated as second class citizens meant that women had much less of a chance to stand out in the public arena. Women could be successful in the family, by bringing up children and developing amateur achievements, but these achievements generally were limited to the home. One way that women could stand out in the public arena was by dressing attractively and fashionable. It is natural for people, both women and men, to want to stand out and men had many opportunities to do so other than how they dress. But women are limited in that so it makes sense that they would try to stand out where they could and that would be in regard to fashions. So I feel it was not because of any natural, inborn reason that women were associated with beauty and felt to be more beautiful than men and men were associated with being more practical, but because women had so much difficulty in earning income and in making a mark in public. Also, because people tend to be a product of their time and place and to a lesser extent the past (what I call social inertia) that is somewhat the case even today.

To be continued,

Moonlight and Roses,

Continued from above.

Now we come to the second factor (see comment # 144), husbands have to trust their wives as to whether their children are really their children. So while one way to attract a husband is for a woman dress attractively, another would be to present herself as being chaste. This would mean that a woman could not show herself to be too interested in men other than the one they love and plan to marry or the one that they are married to. Seeking entertainment to see naked or scantily dressed beautiful men dance on a stage would not show the woman to be chaste. Also, the same problem would occur in buying images of naked or partly dressed men. Women would therefore avoid viewing naked or scantily dressed men whether they wanted to or not. On the other hand, men did not have to be so careful. Since they had the advantage of financial resources they did not have to present themselves as being chaste before or during marriage. Also, men being out in the world working and having their own money had more opportunity to go to places where they could look at naked or semi-naked women and to purchase images of naked or semi-naked women. Women were generally tied to the home and in some places and at certain times, a married woman could not own money or property. All money and property owned by the couple was legally her husband’s. So, even if a woman was willing to risk her marriage and therefore her livelihood in order to pay to see naked men she would have difficulty in terms of not being independent and not having the money. So women were associated with not being interested in looking at men particular naked men, while men were associated with wanting to look at women and naked women. Not being willing to pay to see nude, men is not necessarily a natural, inborn characteristic of women.

Moonlight and Roses,

PS, In the thread “Women” I had written about the 1937 movie “Stage Door.” For those who are interested it is due to be shown on the Turner Classic Movie channel (TCM) tomorrow, Saturday, February 25 at 8:15am.

For the most part in “Western Culture” during the 19th century and afterwards nudity was considered vulgar (see comment # 144). That is there was something wrong with it and in particular being shown nude or enjoying seeing someone nude. An exception was non-photographic works of art where the nude was from mythology, was from the ancient past, was part of an allegory or depicted someone from a foreign land. So, for the most part people were biased against it. That is many people, maybe most, felt there was something morally wrong with it and even when men enjoyed looking at young, thin women it had to generally remain hidden and children had to be "protected" from seeing it. As shown before women had an incentive to appear chaste so that their husbands or future husbands would feel they could be trusted not to fool around with other men. but women were also the main caretakers of children. So women also had an incentive to show themselves to be moral so that their husbands or futures husbands would trust them to be faithful and to properly and morally bring up the children. Thus a woman, who looked at nude men or images of the male nude, would be doing something wrong and would not be considered moral enough to be allowed in such close contact with children and to be allowed to educate them as to right and wrong. On the other hand men didn’t have to be as moral as they had much less contact with the children. And as before since people tend to be a product of their time and place and to a lesser extent the past (due to social inertia) that is somewhat the case even today.

Moonlight and Roses,

Lastly we have the phobia concerning male homosexuality (see comment # 144) which I perceive to be significantly stronger than the phobia concerning female homosexuality. In religions stemming from the Old Testament there has been strong taboos against male homosexuality. Homophobia means that straight males would want to make sure that others would not think them homosexual and gay men would try to hide their homosexuality. Paying too much attention to the visual attractiveness of other men and in particular other naked men might lead others to think that a man is homosexual. So, men both as the consumers of art and entertainment and as the producers of art and entertainment would avoid the male nude or anything that showed the male as beautiful. Men produced most of the art and controlled most of the entertainment so even if a woman was willing to see naked men, could afford it and had the opportunity to see naked men the men who produced the art and entertainment would not provide it. Women did not pay to see naked men or images of naked men because there was so much stacked against them engaging in that activity.

Homophobia may very well have been stronger in the 20th century than in the 19th century. In the 19th century homosexuals pretty much kept themselves out of view that is in the closet. Many people in that century may not even have known about homosexuality, but going into the 20th century that changed. As homosexuals became more visible straight males may have become more anxious about being thought gay and therefore homophobia would have increased.

Moonlight and Roses,

MoonlightandRoses said:

Lastly we have the phobia concerning male homosexuality (see comment # 144) which I perceive to be significantly stronger than the phobia concerning female homosexuality. In religions stemming from the Old Testament there has been strong taboos against male homosexuality. Homophobia means that straight males would want to make sure that others would not think them homosexual and gay men would try to hide their homosexuality. Paying too much attention to the visual attractiveness of other men and in particular other naked men might le ad others to think that a man is homosexual. So, men both as the consumers of art and entertainment and as the producers of art and entertainment would avoid the male nude or anything that showed the male as beautiful. Men produced most of the art and controlled most of the entertainment so even if a woman was willing to see naked men, could afford it and had the opportunity to see naked men the men who produced the art and entertainment would not provide it. Women did not pay to see naked men or images of naked men because there was so much stacked against them engaging in that activity.

Click to expand...

I think there's a bit of overstatement here. First, as a straight guy, I have never seen anything beautiful in any male. Sometimes women coo over this or that guy, and not only is there not much pattern to what they coo over, but I find I don't see it myself. I can find females beautiful. Males are just things that block the view of females. I don't think that's motivated by fear; it's just utter boredom with the concept of the male body.

A guy that comes off as gay will have fewer chances to mate with females (not all females, some are fascinated by gay guys, but many find it a complete turn off). Since straight guys are pretty much wired to try to attract female attention, they implicitly try not to come across as gay. Fear has nothing to do with it, unless fear of not being laid enough counts. I don't think I quite like "I don't want to be perceived as gay" as equivalent to homophobia. I simply want to be perceived as what I am, and my reasons for that have nothing to do with men but perhaps quite a lot to do with women.

In the 19th century homosexuals pretty much kept themselves out of view that is in the closet. Many people in that century may not even have known about homosexuality, but going into the 20th century that changed.

Click to expand...

In some cultures it was seen as a condition to be treated, but it was at least widely recognized. Victorians joked about gay men in ways that would not go over well today, but the jokes show there was widespread understanding of the phenomena. It's hard not to know about something that involves 5% of the population. (The Victorians in particular were public prudes and privately very knowledgeable about a lot of things, and in some ways more grown up about sexuality than moderns tend to be. Things were nastier in the mid to late 1900's; cf how Alan Turing, a hero by any definition, got treated.)

Hands in the Dark, you wrote that “Since straight guys are pretty much wired to try to attract female attention, they implicitly try not to come across as gay.” Whether you call this homophobia or not your claim that “straight guys . . . try not to come across as gay,” is basically the same as my statement that “straight males would want to make sure that others would not think them homosexual.” I then write “Paying too much attention to the visual attractiveness of other men and in particular other naked men might lead others to think that a man is homosexual.” Thus based on how you put it or on how I put it straight men, to avoid seeming gay will not pay much attention to the male nude or anything that showed the male as beautiful, then I feel that the rest of my assertions follow.

You write “I have never seen anything beautiful in any male.” I completely believe you. I have even written that it is my opinion that most people in our current society feel that the female form is more beautiful than the male form, but that does not necessarily mean that people are born with a predisposition to feel that the female form is more beautiful than the male form.

An important point is that I have written that “I believe that there are good evolutionary reasons for people to be born with a predisposition to view each other as attractive for non-sexual reasons.” And that “this attraction would be asexual and therefore would include females being attracted to other females and males being attracted to other males, as well as people of different sexes being attracted to each other.” This could also be extended to people of either sex feeling another person of the same sex is beautiful in an asexual way. Beauty does not mean sexual attraction. I may see a sunset or a flower as being beautiful, but I do not want to have sex with those things. Further I do at times see an image of a nude male as beautiful and at other times see an image of a nude female as beautiful, but that does not necessarily mean I want to have sex with either.

I did not say that there were no people in the 19th century that know about homosexuality, I wrote “many people in that century may not even have known about homosexuality” and I continue to believe that is a possibility.

Moonlight and Roses.