Why We See More Naked Women Than Naked Men On-screen

[Skwim]

.



(A brief excerpt from an article in the Washington Post's on-line Kindle news service)

"Wonder why you see more naked women than men on-screen? Maybe you’re asking the wrong question.
It’s a more complicated subject than you might think​

Nneka McGuire
January 30/20

Few human experiences are undeniably universal, except for breathing, eating and occasionally being irritated with one’s relatives. But here’s one that’s common: You set foot inside a movie theater, and sometime in the next 1.5 to 2 hours, glimpse an uncovered chest or naked backside. Often, those scenes are sexualized. Frequently, the bare body parts belong to women. Overwhelmingly, audiences accept flashes of breast or bottom without much protest.

Female nudity on-screen is commonplace, at times even banal. A 2018 analysis of 1,100 popular films found that 25.4 percent of women had roles with some nudity, versus 9.6 percent of men.

Why?

Depends who you ask. Martha Lauzen, executive director of the Center for the Study of Women in Television and Film at San Diego State University, will tell you the short answer is this: The majority of movie directors and writers are, and always have been, men. Men accounted for 87 percent of directors and 81 percent of writers for the 250 highest-grossing domestic films of 2019, according to a recent report that Lauzen wrote.

Donald Clarke, chief film correspondent at the Irish Times, will tell you — already told you, rather cheekily, in a 2016 article — that women have more “rude bits” than men, and therefore “need remove less clothing to render themselves ‘partially naked.’” Plus, he jokes, the male genitalia present, um, cosmetic challenges.

Above all, Clarke, Lauzen and many corners of the Internet point a damning finger at the male gaze. The term, coined by British film theorist Laura Mulvey in a seminal 1975 essay, refers to the orientation of the camera: If the lens has a point of view, it’s a male one, aligned with the interests and appetites of male audiences. “Generally speaking,” Lauzen writes in an email, “women’s bodies have been put on display for men’s pleasure.”

A preponderance of men helming films: check.

The camera’s male gaze: noted.

So, are we done here? Hardly."
source​

I'll leave the interested RF reader to pursue the answer on their own via the source link.

My questions:

Considering that movies are controlled to a far greater extent by men than women, and that women do have more “rude bits” than men, and therefore “need remove less clothing to render themselves ‘partially naked." And that " “women’s bodies have been put on display for men’s pleasure.” Are these reasons enough to prompt correction? IOW, Is there anything intrinsically wrong with women baring their body parts 2 1/2 times more frequently than men doing the same?


Side question: Does it bother you that nudity, to whatever degree, appears on screen?



.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Let's face it us guys look terrible naked. Much to the dismay of our wildest private fantasies.

A woman flashes a man , they get the thumbs up.

A man flashes a woman he gets, arrested.

I remember years ago the UK had a glass house where there was a man for a week and a woman for a week if I remember correctly.

When the woman took a shower everyday there were throngs of people watching.

When the mans turn came and took a shower everyday you'd be lucky to have a couple of dozen people watching.

I tried finding the article about it but I can't seem to find it anywhere.

 

[Revoltingest]

Duh!
It's cuz we want to see naked women, not naked men.

 

[Estro Felino]

I don't think nudity is scandalous...

We Italians think of course Americans are more Puritans...more like " private vices and public virtues".

But here nudity is seen in a more spiritual way...if you think of the naked statues from the Roman age and Renaissance...

TV shows are a form of art...so I have never seen them as something dirty or vilifying...but as something that glorifies beauty.

 

[Subduction Zone]

.



(A brief excerpt from an article in the Washington Post's on-line Kindle news service)

"Wonder why you see more naked women than men on-screen? Maybe you’re asking the wrong question.
It’s a more complicated subject than you might think​

Nneka McGuire
January 30/20

Few human experiences are undeniably universal, except for breathing, eating and occasionally being irritated with one’s relatives. But here’s one that’s common: You set foot inside a movie theater, and sometime in the next 1.5 to 2 hours, glimpse an uncovered chest or naked backside. Often, those scenes are sexualized. Frequently, the bare body parts belong to women. Overwhelmingly, audiences accept flashes of breast or bottom without much protest.

Female nudity on-screen is commonplace, at times even banal. A 2018 analysis of 1,100 popular films found that 25.4 percent of women had roles with some nudity, versus 9.6 percent of men.

Why?

Depends who you ask. Martha Lauzen, executive director of the Center for the Study of Women in Television and Film at San Diego State University, will tell you the short answer is this: The majority of movie directors and writers are, and always have been, men. Men accounted for 87 percent of directors and 81 percent of writers for the 250 highest-grossing domestic films of 2019, according to a recent report that Lauzen wrote.

Donald Clarke, chief film correspondent at the Irish Times, will tell you — already told you, rather cheekily, in a 2016 article — that women have more “rude bits” than men, and therefore “need remove less clothing to render themselves ‘partially naked.’” Plus, he jokes, the male genitalia present, um, cosmetic challenges.

Above all, Clarke, Lauzen and many corners of the Internet point a damning finger at the male gaze. The term, coined by British film theorist Laura Mulvey in a seminal 1975 essay, refers to the orientation of the camera: If the lens has a point of view, it’s a male one, aligned with the interests and appetites of male audiences. “Generally speaking,” Lauzen writes in an email, “women’s bodies have been put on display for men’s pleasure.”

A preponderance of men helming films: check.

The camera’s male gaze: noted.

So, are we done here? Hardly."
source​

I'll leave the interested RF reader to pursue the answer on their own via the source link.

My questions:

Considering that movies are controlled to a far greater extent by men than women, and that women do have more “rude bits” than men, and therefore “need remove less clothing to render themselves ‘partially naked." And that " “women’s bodies have been put on display for men’s pleasure.” Are these reasons enough to prompt correction? IOW, Is there anything intrinsically wrong with women baring their body parts 2 1/2 times more frequently than men doing the same?


Side question: Does it bother you that nudity, to whatever degree, appears on screen?



.

I only wish that the ratio was higher.

 

[PureX]

Duh!
It's cuz we want to see naked women, not naked men.

I agree and by "we" I think that means men and women. Women aren't that much more interested in seeing naked men than men are.

 

[Estro Felino]

I agree and by "we" I think that means men and women. Women aren't that much more interested in seeing naked men than men are.

Erm...no...I do want to see naked men

 

[Heyo]

First, I question the premise. I have a suspicion that two measures of nakedness were applied. Just think of the popular genre of superhero movies. We have seen the bare chests of Robert Downey Jr., Hugh Jackman, Chris Evans, Chris Hemsworth, Jason Momoa and others. How many bare chests of women have you seen in popular movies lately?

Second, the female form is more pleasing to the eye - independent of the sex of the beholder.

So, to the question "Are these reasons enough to prompt correction?" - For the filmmakers to show more womens breasts? I wouldn't mind but I think it's more a reason for the critics to rethink their definitions of nudity.

"Side question: Does it bother you that nudity, to whatever degree, appears on screen?"
Gratuitous nudity bothers me a bit as it is insulting my intellect. When it fits in with the story I'm more insulted when it is not shown as that is a sign of the studios greed. (Making a movie PG13 that should be a movie for adults.)

 

[Iymus]

Are these reasons enough to prompt correction?

Sure. Less money for women involved in this type of media prostitution and less men watching television.

But also many women on social media accounts such as Instagram posting provocative content. I only say this to say that I believe this article is missing significant pieces to the puzzle.

IOW, Is there anything intrinsically wrong with women baring their body parts 2 1/2 times more frequently than men doing the same?

Under the feminism preached yes. Under the feminism practiced ???

Does it bother you that nudity, to whatever degree, appears on screen?

Nudity seems irrelevant unless experiencing it first hand with consenting member of opposite sex so I have an issue with it. Also it may not have been an issue in the past but I feel like directors nowadays use nudity and intimate scenes to compensate for good writing.

I have been accepting of nudity type scenes at a seasonal finale or end of the movie but more tv shows nowadays want to have it closer and closer to the beginning of the movie or in episode one of a tv series. I rarely watch anything modern nowadays trouble adapting and tolerating it.

 

[Salvador]

.



(A brief excerpt from an article in the Washington Post's on-line Kindle news service)

"Wonder why you see more naked women than men on-screen? Maybe you’re asking the wrong question.
It’s a more complicated subject than you might think​

Nneka McGuire
January 30/20

Few human experiences are undeniably universal, except for breathing, eating and occasionally being irritated with one’s relatives. But here’s one that’s common: You set foot inside a movie theater, and sometime in the next 1.5 to 2 hours, glimpse an uncovered chest or naked backside. Often, those scenes are sexualized. Frequently, the bare body parts belong to women. Overwhelmingly, audiences accept flashes of breast or bottom without much protest.

Female nudity on-screen is commonplace, at times even banal. A 2018 analysis of 1,100 popular films found that 25.4 percent of women had roles with some nudity, versus 9.6 percent of men.

Why?

Depends who you ask. Martha Lauzen, executive director of the Center for the Study of Women in Television and Film at San Diego State University, will tell you the short answer is this: The majority of movie directors and writers are, and always have been, men. Men accounted for 87 percent of directors and 81 percent of writers for the 250 highest-grossing domestic films of 2019, according to a recent report that Lauzen wrote.

Donald Clarke, chief film correspondent at the Irish Times, will tell you — already told you, rather cheekily, in a 2016 article — that women have more “rude bits” than men, and therefore “need remove less clothing to render themselves ‘partially naked.’” Plus, he jokes, the male genitalia present, um, cosmetic challenges.

Above all, Clarke, Lauzen and many corners of the Internet point a damning finger at the male gaze. The term, coined by British film theorist Laura Mulvey in a seminal 1975 essay, refers to the orientation of the camera: If the lens has a point of view, it’s a male one, aligned with the interests and appetites of male audiences. “Generally speaking,” Lauzen writes in an email, “women’s bodies have been put on display for men’s pleasure.”

A preponderance of men helming films: check.

The camera’s male gaze: noted.

So, are we done here? Hardly."
source​

I'll leave the interested RF reader to pursue the answer on their own via the source link.

My questions:

Considering that movies are controlled to a far greater extent by men than women, and that women do have more “rude bits” than men, and therefore “need remove less clothing to render themselves ‘partially naked." And that " “women’s bodies have been put on display for men’s pleasure.” Are these reasons enough to prompt correction? IOW, Is there anything intrinsically wrong with women baring their body parts 2 1/2 times more frequently than men doing the same?


Side question: Does it bother you that nudity, to whatever degree, appears on screen?


.

I like women being a bit revealing, but covering themselves a bit in order to leave something up to my imagination.

 

[questfortruth]

.



(A brief excerpt from an article in the Washington Post's on-line Kindle news service)

"Wonder why you see more naked women than men on-screen? Maybe you’re asking the wrong question.
It’s a more complicated subject than you might think​

.

The things are simple: the God has constructed woman to give birth. Thus, her body must be healthy, so she demonstrates her health. But man is constructed to protect the woman. So, it is not needed for him to demonstrate own penis, one need to demonstrate the ability to work, to provide.

 

[Estro Felino]

Average Italian TV show...

The show is called Ciao Darwin...an anthropological show... where 2 categories of people face each other in a sort of challenge.
Here...Romans against Milanese...
This is the challenge of fashion...so the Roman woman shows her own beauty...so does the milanese.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Average Italian TV show...

The show is called Ciao Darwin...an anthropological show... where 2 categories of people face each other in a sort of challenge.
Here...Romans against Milanese...
This is the challenge of fashion...so the Roman woman shows her own beauty...so does the milanese.

Okay, so you clearly demonstrated the superiority of Italian television.

 

[Galateasdream]

Is there anything intrinsically wrong with women baring their body parts 2 1/2 times more frequently than men doing the same?

Not if it's consensual and non-exploitative.

 

[Howard Is]

"Wonder why you see more naked women than men on-screen?

Because naked women are prettier and sexier than naked men ?

Is this a trick question ?

 

[Stevicus]

.



(A brief excerpt from an article in the Washington Post's on-line Kindle news service)

"Wonder why you see more naked women than men on-screen? Maybe you’re asking the wrong question.
It’s a more complicated subject than you might think​

Nneka McGuire
January 30/20

Few human experiences are undeniably universal, except for breathing, eating and occasionally being irritated with one’s relatives. But here’s one that’s common: You set foot inside a movie theater, and sometime in the next 1.5 to 2 hours, glimpse an uncovered chest or naked backside. Often, those scenes are sexualized. Frequently, the bare body parts belong to women. Overwhelmingly, audiences accept flashes of breast or bottom without much protest.

Female nudity on-screen is commonplace, at times even banal. A 2018 analysis of 1,100 popular films found that 25.4 percent of women had roles with some nudity, versus 9.6 percent of men.

Why?

Depends who you ask. Martha Lauzen, executive director of the Center for the Study of Women in Television and Film at San Diego State University, will tell you the short answer is this: The majority of movie directors and writers are, and always have been, men. Men accounted for 87 percent of directors and 81 percent of writers for the 250 highest-grossing domestic films of 2019, according to a recent report that Lauzen wrote.

Donald Clarke, chief film correspondent at the Irish Times, will tell you — already told you, rather cheekily, in a 2016 article — that women have more “rude bits” than men, and therefore “need remove less clothing to render themselves ‘partially naked.’” Plus, he jokes, the male genitalia present, um, cosmetic challenges.

Above all, Clarke, Lauzen and many corners of the Internet point a damning finger at the male gaze. The term, coined by British film theorist Laura Mulvey in a seminal 1975 essay, refers to the orientation of the camera: If the lens has a point of view, it’s a male one, aligned with the interests and appetites of male audiences. “Generally speaking,” Lauzen writes in an email, “women’s bodies have been put on display for men’s pleasure.”

A preponderance of men helming films: check.

The camera’s male gaze: noted.

So, are we done here? Hardly."
source​

I'll leave the interested RF reader to pursue the answer on their own via the source link.

My questions:

Considering that movies are controlled to a far greater extent by men than women, and that women do have more “rude bits” than men, and therefore “need remove less clothing to render themselves ‘partially naked." And that " “women’s bodies have been put on display for men’s pleasure.” Are these reasons enough to prompt correction? IOW, Is there anything intrinsically wrong with women baring their body parts 2 1/2 times more frequently than men doing the same?


Side question: Does it bother you that nudity, to whatever degree, appears on screen?



.

I'm not sure if it's because most of the film producers/directors are men. One comparison one might make is a comparison between the popularity of Playboy magazine versus the (lack of) popularity of Playgirl magazine. I found an article which explains the decline of Playgirl - a magazine which was originally touted as a "feminist force," but it didn't last. How did 'Playgirl' magazine go from feminist force to flaccid failure?

If the success of the Magic Mike and Fifty Shades of Grey franchises have taught us anything, it’s that women ~love~ spending their free time watching nearly nude men perform for the camera. In fact, it’s safe to say some women can’t get enough. And yet, despite this demand and pop culture’s increasing acknowledgment of it, one iconic franchise appears to be missing from the roster of mainstream outlets through which women can feast their eyes on sexy male flesh.

I’m talking, of course, about Playgirl.

If you identify as a female who is sexually attracted to men, I’m going to go out on a limb and say that you’ve probably never held a copy of the nudie magazine in your hand. You’ve probably never read any of its articles, either. And you’ve likely never spent time gazing at photos like this one, part of a spread from a recent issue titled—wait for it—“Cocky Sutra.”

It didn’t have to be this way. Four decades ago, Playgirl’s editor dreamed that the magazine would be a feminist, sexually progressive beacon of liberation—an envelope-pusher, where women could indulge in both eye candy and mind candy. And for a while, it was. Had the magazine continued on this path, who knows the role it might play in women’s lives today.

Instead, the current Playgirl feels no more essential to women than a Chippendales ad buried in the back of a city newspaper. So what happened?

Apparently, it started off with high hopes, apparently inspired by the popularity of Cosmopolitan (which featured a nude centerfold of Burt Reynolds in 1972, a year before Playgirl started).

Marin Scott Milam believed the magazine had “the potential to be a voice for women of the ‘70s, much the way Cosmo was a magazine of the ‘60s,” she told the Milwaukee Journal in 1976. She also believed Playgirl should push the boundaries of female sexuality in ways that Cosmo, then helmed by the famed Helen Gurley Brown, wouldn’t—by including more nudity, yes, but also by being bolder in spirit.

In the same interview with the Milwaukee Journal, Milam said that while the Cosmo girl “is desperate without a man,” the Playgirl “is her own person first.” Shots fired.

The magazine was successful right out of the gate. Playgirl’s very first issue sold 600,000 copies, and in its first three years, circulation soared to 1.1 million—taking its Los Angeles-based staff from two to around 50 employees.

They also had far more serious articles during the 70s, as indicated in the article:

You know that joke about the husband who gets caught with a collection of Playboys under his bed and claims, “What?! I read it for the articles!” Well, the same scenario could have been applied to Playgirl, too. In its early days, the magazine’s readers were served a balanced diet of centerfolds and serious journalism—on topics ranging from inflation to nuclear energy to the decision of whether to “breed or not to breed.” The magazine also featured interviews with celebrities from Chevy Chase to Bruce Jenner to John Travolta.

But by the time of the more traditional/conservative Reagan era, sales had fallen flat, and by the 90s, it was apparent that a good portion of Playgirl's readership was comprised of gay males. The articles went from serious journalism to mindless fluff such as "10 best places to have sex in public" and "which Star Wars character would you have sex with."

Longtime Playgirl photographer Greg Weiner (heh), who has shot for the magazine in some capacity since 1994, confirmed this in an interview. The articles are still for women, he says, but the visuals are for gay men. Now, if you ask me, even that’s a little bit of a stretch. Yes, the erotic fiction features a heterosexual fantasy, but as far as “articles” go, we’re mostly talking titles like “10 best places to have sex in public” and “Which Star Wars character would you have sex with?” While fun and creative, these topics pale in rigor to Playgirl’s early pieces on abortion rights and the Equal Rights Amendment.

Women make up 50% of the audiences, and they can vote with their dollars. If they don't want to see naked men on screen, then they just don't. If there was a market for it, then we'd see more of it, but there apparently isn't one (as demonstrated by the demise of Playgirl). I don't see how this can be attributed to male film producers and directors.

 

[PureX]

Women make up 50% of the audiences, and they can vote with their dollars. If they don't want to see naked men on screen, then they just don't. If there was a market for it, then we'd see more of it, but there apparently isn't one (as demonstrated by the demise of Playgirl). I don't see how this can be attributed to male film producers and directors.

I agree. I don't think women are obsessed with men's bodies the way men are obsessed with women's bodies.

 

[ChristineM]

.



(A brief excerpt from an article in the Washington Post's on-line Kindle news service)

"Wonder why you see more naked women than men on-screen? Maybe you’re asking the wrong question.
It’s a more complicated subject than you might think​

Nneka McGuire
January 30/20

Few human experiences are undeniably universal, except for breathing, eating and occasionally being irritated with one’s relatives. But here’s one that’s common: You set foot inside a movie theater, and sometime in the next 1.5 to 2 hours, glimpse an uncovered chest or naked backside. Often, those scenes are sexualized. Frequently, the bare body parts belong to women. Overwhelmingly, audiences accept flashes of breast or bottom without much protest.

Female nudity on-screen is commonplace, at times even banal. A 2018 analysis of 1,100 popular films found that 25.4 percent of women had roles with some nudity, versus 9.6 percent of men.

Why?

Depends who you ask. Martha Lauzen, executive director of the Center for the Study of Women in Television and Film at San Diego State University, will tell you the short answer is this: The majority of movie directors and writers are, and always have been, men. Men accounted for 87 percent of directors and 81 percent of writers for the 250 highest-grossing domestic films of 2019, according to a recent report that Lauzen wrote.

Donald Clarke, chief film correspondent at the Irish Times, will tell you — already told you, rather cheekily, in a 2016 article — that women have more “rude bits” than men, and therefore “need remove less clothing to render themselves ‘partially naked.’” Plus, he jokes, the male genitalia present, um, cosmetic challenges.

Above all, Clarke, Lauzen and many corners of the Internet point a damning finger at the male gaze. The term, coined by British film theorist Laura Mulvey in a seminal 1975 essay, refers to the orientation of the camera: If the lens has a point of view, it’s a male one, aligned with the interests and appetites of male audiences. “Generally speaking,” Lauzen writes in an email, “women’s bodies have been put on display for men’s pleasure.”

A preponderance of men helming films: check.

The camera’s male gaze: noted.

So, are we done here? Hardly."
source​

I'll leave the interested RF reader to pursue the answer on their own via the source link.

My questions:

Considering that movies are controlled to a far greater extent by men than women, and that women do have more “rude bits” than men, and therefore “need remove less clothing to render themselves ‘partially naked." And that " “women’s bodies have been put on display for men’s pleasure.” Are these reasons enough to prompt correction? IOW, Is there anything intrinsically wrong with women baring their body parts 2 1/2 times more frequently than men doing the same?


Side question: Does it bother you that nudity, to whatever degree, appears on screen?



.

First, as stated, there are far more men holding the purses in the movie industry

Second. Those men above are interested in profit, men are more willing to spend to see a woman body than vice versa... I consider this is paying the gullible

Third, as a woman i consider men's naked bits to be far more interesting but not really worth paying to see.

 

[Galateasdream]

Third, as a woman i consider men's naked bits to be far more interesting but not really worth paying to see

And therein lies the whole reason why the media, porn, night clubs, strip clubs, advertising, retail, fashion, the Internet, and most of society is the way it is.

 

[Erebus]

First, I question the premise. I have a suspicion that two measures of nakedness were applied. Just think of the popular genre of superhero movies. We have seen the bare chests of Robert Downey Jr., Hugh Jackman, Chris Evans, Chris Hemsworth, Jason Momoa and others. How many bare chests of women have you seen in popular movies lately?

This is a fair point. Mainstream films in my experience tend to show bare-chested men far more frequently than women. The horror genre is an exception to that, though having an obligatory topless woman seems to have largely fallen out of fashion in the last decade or so.

At any rate, I don't personally think that nudity (whether it's presented as sexual or not) is a problem for the most part.* It always struck me as odd that violence is considered far more acceptable than nudity and sex. In college I actually covered media censorship for one assignment and used a Youtube clip as an example of this. The clip was from a horror film and depicted a woman seducing a man and tying him to a bed. She then proceeded to put a tube down his throat and pump acid through it, the effects of which were displayed in all their gory detail.

Youtube's response was to ask the uploader to edit out a snippet in which the woman's breasts were visible.


*In certain contexts it could be problematic though. If you were to depict rape for example, you need to make damn sure you're sending the right message.