In a weekly link roundup Lauren of Feministe mentions
NAKED AMBITION: PETA has long made the assertion that nude protests are a necessary and radical component to their activism. But why aren’t more men getting naked?
The link is to Daisydeadhead’s Daisy Dead Air who uncovers an interesting twist from a reader who says that a) PETA evidently does use naked men although b) they have a much harder time finding men willing to undress during demonstrations. (If so then this makes them slightly less annoying by the way. But only slightly. Even for people who’d actually like to see animals treated ethically.) Which raises more questions. Here’s Daisydeadhead
If appearance standards are more strict for women, why are men seemingly more modest?
Why are men so much less likely to get naked for a protest? Are men less likely to shed clothes in general?
Is this a way to make sure certain parts of the male anatomy remain mysterious and sacrosanct? Or are naked men also more likely to be arrested than women? (Since the PETA demonstrations are covered by the First Amendment, that doesn’t seem to be the issue.)
Digging into her comments one commenter, lilacsigil, adds
There was a photo of a PETA protest in the newspaper this morning (Melbourne Herald Sun) and I counted at least 6 naked women (including one who was the focus of the picture) but there was one naked man right behind her (presumably – he was only visible from the waist up).
In other words it sounds like what we know about PETA’s campaigns come to us through a couple of filters. First they at least allegedly have more women volunteers than men. Second, though, it sounds like the majority of photographers, and photo publishers, key in on the naked women and/or crop out what few naked men might also show up.
So where’s *that coming from? Most of the comments suggest it’s not from women… which should be music to Erotica Cover Watch’s Mathilde Madden and Kristina Lloyd’s naked-man-appreciating ears. But if it’s not coming from women then… well… that’s why I think the no-sex class paradigm is primarily a phenomenon of men.
Rule #2: It’s simultaneously inconceivable and intolerable for men to be sexually desired. Therefore even if there weren’t a strong bias towards the whole “male gaze” thing for women men will both be naked less and be shown naked less because it’s more of an offense to show naked men. Which is, of course, dumb, but there you go.
Update: Too late, really, but I changed the title to be even more egregiously alliterative.
Submitted by 2720 (not verified) on Mon, 2009-02-16 21:22.
I wondered the same thing about the modesty of men. Noticing that as women's swimwear went from the bikini to the thong, men's went from the speedo to jams.
[Yup, that's an excellent point, Five. Thanks. --fl]
Submitted by 2720 (not verified) on Tue, 2009-02-17 18:11.
Because if you are a man who sees naked men a lot, you will get turned on, and become gay. And if you are a woman who sees naked men a lot, you will get turned off, and become a lesbian. This is because modern humans have extremely fragile sexual orientations, unlike people from between 5 decades ago and the dawn of humanity. ;)
recaptcha: reading Dawkins
[Nightfall, I'm *so* glad I was out of quality connection range when you posted this because I would have just promoted it as an update to the original post. Instead I'll have to promote it to it's own, well-deserved post. Because it's pretty priceless! Thank you. --fl]
Submitted by 2720 (not verified) on Wed, 2009-02-18 21:15.
"[I]f you are a man who sees naked men a lot, you will get turned on, and become gay. And if you are a woman who sees naked men a lot, you will get turned off, and become a lesbian."
That is fantastic. It explains so much juvenile, annoying ridiculousness with so few words.
[Yup. I've totally turned Nightfall's comment into its own post. It does explain a lot. And yeah, juvenile, annoying ridiculousness puts it rather succinctly, Tlt. Thanks. --fl]