Nackte Manner: Are we Just Not Used In Seeing Them?

I suppose this is very subjective depending on a variety of things, but, what do you think is more appealing to the eye, a naked woman or man?

Art history seems to say it is the naked woman with full bosom and a hour glass shape, and a naked man? Does the size of his private parts matter to the viewer? I can definitely hear a "yes" on that, but what the man's build, broad shoulders and narrow waist coupled with abs and muscles? Usually, women in history (art and statutes) bare all for all to gaze at, usually with men, there is modesty and a carefully placed item covering the penis and testicles. Is the main reason because the work of art was done by a man, probably. But, it is also a product of the times. When Queen Victoria saw Michelangelo's "David" at the London museum, she demanded to have a fig leaf placed over his genitals. Most, if not all, of the art masters in history have been men and while some did paint works with frontally nude men, exposing all, many were later censored by the Church. That is what happened in the 16th Century when Bartolomeo's painting, St. Sebastion, was displayed. When first displayed, women were caught whispering about his penis. This quickly caused a censoring of the painting. Most nude men that appear in paintings are placed in mythical, war, or religious situations where the man's sexuality is not the object of the work, like in the 1828 painting, Death of Hippolytus.

Even today, one seldom ever sees a nude man in a painting, statue, or image. Now, nude women are still the chosen ones. Maybe a woman's body is simply more pleasant on the eyes.

More by this Author


Comments

No comments yet.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working