Male Nudity And Equality

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
yolland said:
I can think of a (justly) much more famous icon of the beautiful male form who isn't nearly as "sizeable":

davidlm5.jpg

too be fair, david had just gotten out of the pool.

(not to mention that he was a teenager you pervs :tsk: )
 
Last edited:
Actually the main reason for David's smaller penis is that Michelangelo was emulating classical Greek standards of male beauty, in which smaller penises were preferred. Classical-period Greek nudes almost always look like that. Also that particular statue is 17' high and on a pedestal, so the entire lower body is slightly smaller than the upper body in order to create a proportional impression when viewed from the ground.

I spent 10 minutes or so bemusedly watching other tourists in that room after I was done looking at the statue, and it was my observation that women viewers tended to spend the most time admiring the side and back views of its butt. Men spent more time looking at the front. (The most amusing, but also depressing thing, however, was the number of people who strolled up to it with their cameras already raised, snapped a bunch of shots, then moved hurriedly on to the next photo op without actually looking at it with their own eyes. I saw the same syndrome in various other European museums with famous works..."I came, I snapped away, I left.")
 
yolland said:
Actually the main reason for David's smaller penis is that Michelangelo was emulating classical Greek standards of male beauty, in which smaller penises were preferred.



were smaller penises preferred on all men, or just the "beautiful boy" ideal that David seems to represent?

my guess is that the "boy," being the receptive partner, wasn't valued for having a powerful phallus.
 
Irvine511 said:
were smaller penises preferred on all men, or just the "beautiful boy" ideal that David seems to represent?
No, from what I was taught it seems to have been a more generalized preference. At the National Archeological Museum in Athens, which had the largest collection of classical statues I've seen, virtually all of them, including the superbuff gods, war heroes etc. looked like that.
 
Last edited:
FitzChivalry said:
Many straight guys see each other naked in locker rooms and showers all the time (and I presume) don't even think twice about it.

So I wonder why it would bother them to see full-frontal male nudity on TV or film?

:scratch:


This has been my question too.
 
I don't and I don't want to watch another mans member at all, it's my preference and my right to choose not to - and if the marketplace also feels the same way and doesn't pitch as much male nudity as female nudity then so be it.
 
FitzChivalry said:
Many straight guys see each other naked in locker rooms and showers all the time (and I presume) don't even think twice about it.

So I wonder why it would bother them to see full-frontal male nudity on TV or film?

:scratch:

Men naked in a locker room doesn't equal men seeing each other's penis...trust me, guys will do all they can to avoid a peek, whether it's because they don't want to see or don't want to be caught peeking.
 
A_Wanderer said:
I don't and I don't want to watch another mans member at all, it's my preference and my right to choose not to - and if the marketplace also feels the same way and doesn't pitch as much male nudity as female nudity then so be it.
Fair enough, except the producers supplying the market in question (mainstream cinema) are mostly male and tend to share your squeamishness; and it's not as if female consumers are going to boycott the status quo product simply because they're personally not interested in yet another titty shot. Most filmgoers in general aren't going to refuse to see an otherwise interesting-sounding movie simply because there won't be nudity in it, so I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that audience preferences alone determine the present tendency towards obligatory titty shots on the one hand, but prudishness about male nudity on the other.
CTU2fan said:
Men naked in a locker room doesn't equal men seeing each other's penis...trust me, guys will do all they can to avoid a peek, whether it's because they don't want to see or don't want to be caught peeking.
Yes, and women don't walk around locker rooms eagerly ogling each other's breasts either...regardless of sex or sexual orientation, it's not an appropriate environment for staring.
 
CTU2fan said:


Men naked in a locker room doesn't equal men seeing each other's penis...trust me, guys will do all they can to avoid a peek, whether it's because they don't want to see or don't want to be caught peeking.

Awesome. Finding myself rarely in a locker room, I was just wondering as to that supposed discrepancy.

This perfectly answers my question.
 
A_Wanderer said:
I don't and I don't want to watch another mans member at all, it's my preference and my right to choose not to

By FYM standards, you're a pervert. :wink:
 
MrPryck2U said:
Well, for any guy that's watched straight porn, seeing an erect penis shouldn't be a big deal at all.
Hell, in that movie SuperBad, there's a whole scene about a straight boy's obsession with erect penises. Very funny scene, btw.

I think this dude was on to something.
 
Ahhh another half an hour staring at that painting in the musee d'orsay.

yolland i too noticed all the people coming in, staring for a moment and then leaving. (photos were banned)
i know art is not everyone's cup of tea, but you paid about 9 euro to look at it, don't just glance and leave - it is equisite, perfect, and just a nod to one of the most amazing artistic/logical minds ever. :sigh:
 
Back
Top Bottom