This forum allows for a good jumping off point to examine how prevalent it is. Since this is a topic of concern, I would enjoy going into detail, but I will be brief. This discussion is about privacy issues concerning the way a female’s privacy is protected and a man’s is not. It is not limited to the locker room issue. Our scrutiny must also turn to the mainstream media. There is blatant bias in Hollywood and film. The amazing thing is most feminist will argue that women are the objectified gender when the opposite is true.

Inequality is easily seen. Although I could go into a tirade about how much full-frontal male exposure is present on virtually every HBO and discuss the way male rear exposure is acceptable on comedy central, MTV, FX channel, and many more; the point is better illustrated by a simple litmus test for comparison – replace the male lead with a female lead and logically conclude whether such a visual would then be accepted.

Examine the recent films of Hostel 2, Walk Hard, and Eastern Promises. Hostel 2 shows, in graphic detail, the male member being severed and fed to a dog. What if the gender were reversed here and it were graphic female mutilation? There would be a definite outcry. Then there is the prolonged scene of male frontal exposure in Walk Hard for “comedic” effect. What if it were graphic exposure of a female sitting down on full display? Would that be allowed? Finally, consider Eastern Promises with a graphic steam sauna fight, exposing the male lead to an extent that nothing is left to the imagination, but deemed acceptable for its “dramatic effect”. Can anyone imagine if that scene were changed with a woman spin-kicking and sprawled about? The movie would be considered exploitive trash.

Replacing the man in each of these roles with a woman allows the casual viewer to see just how blatant and gratuitous these scenes are. The contrast is laughable. These types of depictions should not be allowed at all. In fact, they are not allowed by the MPAA when the graphic depiction concerns a women.

A little art film from Britain came out awhile back about an artist that could freeze time and used this ability to disrobe the women who were shopping at his grocery store in order to draw them. It was quite popular at Cannes and Toronto Film festival and was a hit with the critics. The buzz led to its transformation into a full length feature film called Cashback. In order to be released with an R rating, the female figures were digitally altered to cover some of the more revealing areas. Having watched the original film short, the amount of female flesh on display was far less than that currently shown by men in current film and cable television. Why was the prominent display of the men in the above listed films allowed while the women’s privacy was kept sacrosanct?

This discussion is relevant because it shows, again, how women are protected and respected while men are flaunted. Keep it analogous; women enjoy a nice looking male chest as much as men enjoy a nice looking female chest. Please do not compare a female upper body to a man’s lower. Neither genders genitalia should be shown, but if it is, it should be equal.

Bare flesh always leads to vibrant discussion, but more disturbing than the disproportionate amount of male flesh displayed on cable and movies is the general depiction of men on television. On the average sitcom, take a look at the male figures and compare them to their female counterparts. How often is the man a bumbling, unintelligent buffoon who requires the saving grace of his well rounded wife in order to make it through the episode? Now imagine we had a show where the man new what was best and the woman was a moron. Imagine the feminist outcry! Yet, it is perfectly acceptable for male bashing to occur without so much as a batted eyelash – it is business as usual.

Be careful of what this may teach the future generations of men in our society.