I love Victoria Bateman's presentations. She is brilliant.
However an average man who exposes too much skin probably risks a lot more than a woman doing the same thing. Male nudity in public has always been punished more severely than female nudity, if in different ways.
Isn't it interesting how patriarchy defends itself? It's more of a threat to see one of its own naked than the gender that it already objectifies. It doesn't want to be questioned.
Much - if not most - textile contact with public nudity comes in the form of male sexual exhibitionists. Most pedophiles and rapists are male, and that involves an exposed penis. That creates a bias.
I personally know women who think a penis is a weapon and an openly nude male is the equivalent brandishing a firearm. I know a lot of it is probably insecure men afraid to have their women see another man's penis, but I don't think that's the whole story.
How is patriarchy related to male exhibitionism? I'm not aware that people like Elon Musk go around flaunting their dong (except metaphorically perhaps).
In regard to women... is merely seeing male genitals a problem on clothing-optional beaches - or are women mistaking harmless male nudity on such beaches for exhibitionism? Deliberate exhibitionism isn't OK anywhere. However in cities like San Francisco (although not a typical example) there are men who regularly go naked in certain areas of the city (other than beaches). They are even welcome in some businesses in those areas. There's a public park in Seattle where men (usually gay) can go naked. It's allowed in some public parks in Germany, and even a designated area in a Paris park. And then there are various common events like WNBR where participants (mostly male) are naked. (As you've done yourself, Fred.) Does that offend many women?
I certainly understand women's concern about harassment and potential rape. But naturist organizations should be clear they don't condone or promote exhibitionism. It's understandable that many women may not see the distinction, so that's why naturists should be clear about this. Isn't a reasonable function of naturist organizations to stress the difference between naturism and exhibitionism, as well as to promote nonsexual nudity for both men and women, at least in certain public (and private) places?
It's legal for women to be topfree in New York State, and various other locations too. Is doing that exhibitionism? What about full female nudity (where male nudity is allowed)? I can understand how plenty of women may not see any difference between naturism and exhibitionism. But part of that results from naturist organizations inadequately explaining the difference.
Naturist organizations (at least in the US) lack the money, size, and marketing competence to explain the difference to the general public. When they do outreach at the very few venues that are accepting of naturism, it often blows up because of people who do not like the venue or the politics of the people running it.
I didn't say anything about the "patriarchy." A lot of women (Not all but I'm not going to hazard a guess at the percentages.) find men somewhat threatening regardless of the environment. Remember the "Would you rather meet a man or a bear in the woods" meme? If the man is nude, that would ratchet up the tension considerably. The zeitgeist of the time is to treat all men as dangerous so you can avoid the small percentage of bad actors..
OTOH, nobody is afraid of meeting a nude woman in the forest. If there is a hostile reaction it is disgust at her sinful behavior, not fear.
Just referring to the US. Of course, Europe has a slightly different relationship with nudity.
"Naturist organizations (at least in the US) lack the money, size, and marketing competence to explain the difference to the general public."
And that ultimately is on the shoulders of naturists themselves who don't join and support the organizations.
"When they do outreach at the very few venues that are accepting of naturism, it often blows up because of people who do not like the venue or the politics of the people running it."
U.S. political public is opinion is pretty evenly divided. Of the more open-minded half, I think many would at least not object to naturist articles in places like The Atlantic, New York Times, Outside, Cosmopolitan, etc. I know the first three of those have featured good mostly-positive naturist articles. Many naturists have the writing skills to offer good articles, and others could recommend naturist articles to the myriad other outlets, including regional and local publications in the vicinity of existing naturist places.
"A lot of women (Not all but I'm not going to hazard a guess at the percentages.) find men somewhat threatening regardless of the environment."
There's actually very little naturist activity (except in places like San Francisco) outside naturist venues and relatively secluded camping spots and hiking trails. I'd guess that very few women who don't personally know one or more naturists have ever seen one in the wild. Note that this is a serious problem only for women who aren't with one or more companions.
Total girl crush. One slight correction to the assertion that home is the safest place to be nude. For many women who are in IPV relationships, home is the most dangerous place to be naked. Many women live with the person who would harm them the most.
Yes, that's very unfortunate. Women should realize that one of the two major parties wants to do away with "no fault" divorce - so women will have to "prove" why a marriage should be ended.
I love Victoria Bateman's presentations. She is brilliant.
However an average man who exposes too much skin probably risks a lot more than a woman doing the same thing. Male nudity in public has always been punished more severely than female nudity, if in different ways.
Isn't it interesting how patriarchy defends itself? It's more of a threat to see one of its own naked than the gender that it already objectifies. It doesn't want to be questioned.
The main goal of patriarchy is amassing fortunes. I doubt they care at all about nudity -
unless they have connections or investments in the clothing industry,
Maybe.
Much - if not most - textile contact with public nudity comes in the form of male sexual exhibitionists. Most pedophiles and rapists are male, and that involves an exposed penis. That creates a bias.
I personally know women who think a penis is a weapon and an openly nude male is the equivalent brandishing a firearm. I know a lot of it is probably insecure men afraid to have their women see another man's penis, but I don't think that's the whole story.
How is patriarchy related to male exhibitionism? I'm not aware that people like Elon Musk go around flaunting their dong (except metaphorically perhaps).
In regard to women... is merely seeing male genitals a problem on clothing-optional beaches - or are women mistaking harmless male nudity on such beaches for exhibitionism? Deliberate exhibitionism isn't OK anywhere. However in cities like San Francisco (although not a typical example) there are men who regularly go naked in certain areas of the city (other than beaches). They are even welcome in some businesses in those areas. There's a public park in Seattle where men (usually gay) can go naked. It's allowed in some public parks in Germany, and even a designated area in a Paris park. And then there are various common events like WNBR where participants (mostly male) are naked. (As you've done yourself, Fred.) Does that offend many women?
I certainly understand women's concern about harassment and potential rape. But naturist organizations should be clear they don't condone or promote exhibitionism. It's understandable that many women may not see the distinction, so that's why naturists should be clear about this. Isn't a reasonable function of naturist organizations to stress the difference between naturism and exhibitionism, as well as to promote nonsexual nudity for both men and women, at least in certain public (and private) places?
It's legal for women to be topfree in New York State, and various other locations too. Is doing that exhibitionism? What about full female nudity (where male nudity is allowed)? I can understand how plenty of women may not see any difference between naturism and exhibitionism. But part of that results from naturist organizations inadequately explaining the difference.
Naturist organizations (at least in the US) lack the money, size, and marketing competence to explain the difference to the general public. When they do outreach at the very few venues that are accepting of naturism, it often blows up because of people who do not like the venue or the politics of the people running it.
I didn't say anything about the "patriarchy." A lot of women (Not all but I'm not going to hazard a guess at the percentages.) find men somewhat threatening regardless of the environment. Remember the "Would you rather meet a man or a bear in the woods" meme? If the man is nude, that would ratchet up the tension considerably. The zeitgeist of the time is to treat all men as dangerous so you can avoid the small percentage of bad actors..
OTOH, nobody is afraid of meeting a nude woman in the forest. If there is a hostile reaction it is disgust at her sinful behavior, not fear.
Just referring to the US. Of course, Europe has a slightly different relationship with nudity.
"Naturist organizations (at least in the US) lack the money, size, and marketing competence to explain the difference to the general public."
And that ultimately is on the shoulders of naturists themselves who don't join and support the organizations.
"When they do outreach at the very few venues that are accepting of naturism, it often blows up because of people who do not like the venue or the politics of the people running it."
U.S. political public is opinion is pretty evenly divided. Of the more open-minded half, I think many would at least not object to naturist articles in places like The Atlantic, New York Times, Outside, Cosmopolitan, etc. I know the first three of those have featured good mostly-positive naturist articles. Many naturists have the writing skills to offer good articles, and others could recommend naturist articles to the myriad other outlets, including regional and local publications in the vicinity of existing naturist places.
"A lot of women (Not all but I'm not going to hazard a guess at the percentages.) find men somewhat threatening regardless of the environment."
There's actually very little naturist activity (except in places like San Francisco) outside naturist venues and relatively secluded camping spots and hiking trails. I'd guess that very few women who don't personally know one or more naturists have ever seen one in the wild. Note that this is a serious problem only for women who aren't with one or more companions.
Total girl crush. One slight correction to the assertion that home is the safest place to be nude. For many women who are in IPV relationships, home is the most dangerous place to be naked. Many women live with the person who would harm them the most.
Yes, that's very unfortunate. Women should realize that one of the two major parties wants to do away with "no fault" divorce - so women will have to "prove" why a marriage should be ended.
Great article with lots of interesting facts - reminding us why things are the way they are!! Thanks very much for posting it!