Ladies: Are your mental naked men missing middles?
December 28th, 2009 | by TJ |So, I was up in the middle of the night the other night, and I was watching this Craig Ferguson movie (seriously), and at the triumphant ending of the sort you’d imagine would be at the end of a Craig Ferguson movie, there was… full frontal.
Man full frontal.
And the man?
He was skipping.
I went to bed shortly after this because honestly, how could you not, but I laid there, awake, for quite some time, thinking about male nudity. There’s not a lot of it in movies and on television and such, and there’s good reason for that. Now, every once in a while, you’ll hear some uppity women’s group (not all women’s groups are uppity – some are) talking about how there should be equal amounts of male nudity in media, but that is always quickly quashed – because no one – women included – really want to see that.
Now, I’m not going to lie to you, Internet. I think about male nudity. Woo! Naked males! Woo! But I realized something, there in the dark, after having been so recently confronted with flopping dangle.
When I think about male nudity, I mean, when I really sit here and picture a naked man, the area that comprises the whole baby making business is either kind of hazy or just skipped over all together.
It’s not that I don’t know what it all looks like. Because I totally do, Internet. I do. I mean, I’ve seen one. In real life, even.
But if I’m going to sit here thinking thoughts about men declothed, maybe I only think about them from the waist up, like, you know, werewolf abdominals or something. Or maybe I do a slow pan down, except the camera darts away to check out a suspicious sound down the corridor right when I’m getting to the hipbones, and comes back around the thighs. I’m not sure, really. It’s all pretty much abs and shoulders and legs. Maybe a little butt sometimes. I don’t know. There’s a whole region that I’ve realized is pretty much missing from my mental naked men, and I’m pretty sure I’m not alone in this.
It’s been said, from time to time, in frat boy movies and such, that a man can see a woman on the street and immediately picture her naked. And that’s attractive to a man, I suppose, a naked lady and all of her parts. A woman could do the same thing to a man on the street, I suppose, and might very well do so, but is much more likely than a man to leave the underpants area covered so as not to destroy the sexiness.
The thing is, when you’ve got a naked man in your head, and you’re trying to think about him as an attractive, sexy creature, you can’t bring the wobbly parts into it. Because once you bring the wobbly parts in, you’ve got complications and hilarity on your hands, and all sexiness has gone completely out the window.
Let me tell you what I mean, because you knew I was going to.
First, right off the bat, when picturing a naked man and deciding that you’re going to go ahead and do it right this time, you’ve got a decision to make straight away – are you picturing normal, video game playing, butt scratching naked man, or action naked man? I mean, is he ready to, you know, go? To bed? With you? To do sex? Do I need to be more explicit here, ladies?
Does he have an erection?
Let’s say he does. Here are all the problems you are confronted with if you are trying to picture a naked man with an erection.
- His facial expression. You can’t have him making a sexy face at you. Go ahead and try it right now. Picture a naked man, with an erection, making what you think is a sexy face at you and you just try not to laugh at him and ask him how old he is.
- And if you’re me? You have to resist the urge to ask your own fantasy naked man if he’s proud of what he’s got there in some bitingly clever fashion, because if you think of something funny to say, you can’t resist saying it, even if it’s really mean, and even if it’s to an imaginary naked man, and even if it’s going to make him feel really insecure about the size of his imaginary erection, even though you imagined it so it is surely more than adequate.
- His hands. Do you even know what a dude does with his hands when he has an erection? I don’t. In my own mental experiment, first they were on his hips, all proud-like, which lead to one of my biting comments, which lead to him putting his hands over his erection to cover his shame, but I’m trying to SEE it here, so the best I could come up with was in the air, over his head, like I was imagining a naked bank hold up. With erections.
And what if he doesn’t have an erection? What if he’s a naked man and he’s standing there in front of you with just his normal, every day, non-action penis? Let’s mentally experiment with this scenario, ladies.
- Heh heh heh. I see his penis. Heh heh heh.
Yeah, that one goes nowhere for me, too.
The thing is, like I said above, it’s not like I don’t know what it looks like, or what, you know, the whole business all together looks like. I live with a man. Contrary to what my mother may want to believe, I’ve seen him naked. Four, maybe even five times. And I’m not saying he’s not sexy. He totally is. But even if I picture him naked, I don’t necessarily add in his areas (sorry I’m talking about your areas on the Internet). When I started this post, I thought maybe it was because I was conjuring up imaginary men out of thin air, and that’s why their dangles wouldn’t show up in my mind, but the same is true of the dangle in my house, as well.
I think, then, that it must be that there’s just a difference between the whole male experience that I know and can see after a shower, walking around going, “Hey, do I have any clean underwear?” and the whole male experience waxed and oiled up with one arm behind his head on a fur rug or something. One of those experiences has an appropriately placed penis and the other experience instead has an artfully placed bouquet of roses and chocolates. For me.
I decided to end the post right here because it suddenly started to look like I could delve into psychology or something and that sounds really hard when I honestly meant to just say the word dangle a lot. Feel free to extrapolate, though.
By Awlbiste on Dec 28, 2009
This is true. Well, to an extent. If I conjure up just an imaginary naked man there’s definitely no area there, and there’s not really a noticeable lack of area either. It’s kind of like a lack of area which is supposed to not be there. A natural lack.
However if I picture my naked man there’s an area in kind of a nonchalant, hey-where-are-my-underwear sort of way.
Also, I think his hands would just be down.
[Reply]
Awlbiste Reply:
December 28th, 2009 at 11:25 am
ALSO, I feel like adding another thing. Because I do that.
I don’t think penises are unsexy or ugly, it’s just not something I necessarily picture, intentional or not.
I kind of feel like saying “penises are ugly” is sort of rude on the same level as “vaginas look like canned ham.”
[Reply]
TJ Reply:
December 28th, 2009 at 11:53 am
I don’t think penises are attractive, but nor do I think vaginas are attractive. That’s not to say that either are UGLY. Just that neither are something I enjoy looking at as a happy pastime.
And you’ll never find me being one of those women telling a daughter that her vagina is a beautiful flower or anything like that. I dunno.
They’re all just functional parts to me, not ones I think of when considering the most aesthetically appealing parts of the body.
[Reply]
TJ Reply:
December 28th, 2009 at 11:54 am
Hands down looks all awkward. Was it Jerry Seinfeld or Paul Reiser who said that nude beaches called for the invention of something like a belt with pockets hanging from it for something to do with the hands?
[Reply]
By Fyurae on Dec 28, 2009
I think you hit the nail on the head there. That area is just inherently unsexy, so its best to gloss over as much as possible. And I dare say that for most women, that is NOT what they find attractive about any many. That’s not a body part that gets up riled up. Sure they have their uses, but I think most women could probably lead a satisfying sexual life without ever having to see one.
It’s like Lynne Koplitz says: hospital corners.
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=4572098
[Reply]
TJ Reply:
December 28th, 2009 at 11:56 am
You’re true. I would say that our sex life (oh man I’m talking about our sex life and I’m pretty sure one of the rules of the house is that I’m not supposed to blog about our sex life but this is commenting so I’m pretty sure I’ve found a loophole) goes on pretty well with me rarely having to actually LOOK at it for any length of time.
[Reply]
By Melissa on Dec 28, 2009
All TRUE! It’s a wonder more women aren’t lesbians.
[Reply]
TJ Reply:
December 28th, 2009 at 11:57 am
Well, I’m not repulsed by penises!
[Reply]
By Maebius on Dec 28, 2009
Forgive me for potential gender-bias here, bieng a man an all, but in all honesty I think there may just be some sort of “art-fulness” involved. Fully naked women can be very beautiful to the eye without really being sexually titilating (pun intended?). Naked men can be art-ishly beautiful as well, as you described. Broad shoulders and thighs and such, but those dangly bits just break up the “lines” or something. Turgid bits likewise just make things silly since they impart a definite Context to the imagery, that may detract from the “nice to look at” you were describing.
To avoid further psych musings, I’ll stop there and revert to “ooh, boobs!” mental imagery and save face among guys out there. :)
[Reply]
TJ Reply:
December 28th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
I don’t know if that really is along the lines of what I’m saying.
Your comment makes it sound like men think about naked people for sexual purposes while women appreciate the naked form for artful reasons. Therefore, naked women are okay because they’re more pleasing in an artful sense, while the penis disrupts artful lines, so it makes sense that women would avoid thinking about it.
There’s just one thing that disrupts that theory – women think about naked men for reasons that have nothing to do with art, too. And their appreciation of the male form does not always have to do with looking at it from a more artistic angle than men would a naked woman because they are female.
When it comes to naked people, men and women are largely the same. In a museum, we’re appreciating the art. In our own heads, we’re appreciating the naked.
[Reply]
Maebius Reply:
December 28th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
I hear what you say, but failed to explain my artsiness concept. It’s not so much museum art, but that was the best analogy I could come up with for short comment regarding how I picture naked people. It’s probably something deeper and subconcious? I tend to avoid mental visualizations of labia majora also and tend to just blur that region into “hip-area” myself even in imaginary ladies. Less so with them since there is ‘less’ to hide, whereas guys just have dangling bits that make the mental picture more obviously “filtered” compared to reality.
So, I’m kinda agreeing with you, and had initially tried to make an excuse for it that made sense other than prudishness. :)
I mean, full frontal closeups to me are jsut not “hawt” either, so I was agreeing with you. I think. :) I also think this may become one of the more comment-ridden posts you’ve done lately. As sex-talk brings out the lurkers like me in droves!
[Reply]
By Lori on Dec 28, 2009
Bahahahahaaaaaaaaa. I love you.
[Reply]
TJ Reply:
December 28th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
Ha. Thanks.
[Reply]
By Jen_Ann_W on Dec 28, 2009
You know, I never realized it but this is completely true. When I want to see a hot guy, I want to see a hot guy, not a hot guy’s wang. There’s nothing inherently special about one, nothing about it that makes a girl sit up & take notice, you know? Apart from variances in size and… erm… cut… they’re all pretty much the same. Whereas the REST of the guy can be much more appealing, or unappealing, and that’s what makes or breaks the whole idea of a semi-nude drool-fest.
Now those hot little muscles right ABOVE, those are another matter. Also, ass-dimples. Ahem.
[Reply]
TJ Reply:
December 28th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
“When I want to see a hot guy, I want to see a hot guy, not a hot guy’s wang.”
I love that.
[Reply]
Adlib Reply:
January 2nd, 2010 at 5:31 pm
I have to agree with TJ; that is a great sentence!
[Reply]
By Bellwether on Dec 28, 2009
I’d like to see more nudity in general presented as nothing more than what it is; a body.
Like how everyone freaked out over The Watchmen because of “AMG GIANT BLUE WANG” when really it was just there because the guy had no need for clothes and he was male. I see nothing wrong with portraying bodies, all of bodies.
I dunno. Maybe it’s just me.
[Reply]
Khronos Reply:
December 28th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
It’s not just you. I was annoyed by the Watchmen reviews that focused on that too.
[Reply]
TJ Reply:
December 28th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
Ok, I don’t care what part of the world you’re from, a big blue penis is news.
[Reply]
Khronos Reply:
December 28th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
I totally understand that- I’m talking about the ones that described the movie as “A BIG BLUE WANG, and a couple other things happened too,” when it’s actually got a pretty deep message, etc. But now I fear I’m entering the realm of “dudes missing the point of your post, ” so sorry, and I’ll get back on track :(
[Reply]
TJ Reply:
December 28th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
To be fair, the very fact that you’re a dude kind of cripples you in this discussion.
Khronos Reply:
December 28th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
Yes, I’ve deduced that from the rest of the comments on here- we with the blurry middles should’ve more properly respected the first word/direction of the title :)
[Reply]
TJ Reply:
December 28th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
Eh. I’m slightly more old school. I’m not of the “bodies are something to be ashamed of” school of thought, but more of the “certain parts of me are private” school of thought.
If Phil and I do have kids, I certainly wouldn’t want them to think that they should hide and be ashamed of any of their parts, but I’m also not going to teach them that their body is nothing but a composition of parts to be casual about, because some of those parts are more private than other parts and should be kept to themselves and other certain special people, etc, etc.
Not for reason of ashamedness. For privateness. But that’s just me. I won’t even kiss Phil in public. I’m that type. I’m weird.
Anyway. That’s kind of getting away from the point in general and into the more political side of nudity.
Sticking to the strictly sexual side, because whether you want to or not, we cannot deny that there is a sexual side to nudity and nudity is and/or can be a very sexual thing, when I picture a naked man, I skip the wiener. I don’t think it’s very sexy. That’s all. It’s just a part, as you say. A functional one. Not a sexy one.
LIKE THE TUSH.
[Reply]
Bellwether Reply:
December 28th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
I think penis is sexy. It does an important job!
[Reply]
Chaninn Reply:
December 29th, 2009 at 8:38 am
The sexiness depends on context for me. Is the nakedness in a movie or is it someone walking down the street? Am I feeling naughty or practical?
My imaginary naked man does have a dangle because I can’t imagine a naked man as a Ken Doll. Ken was freaky when I was a kid & is still freaky today so my imaginary naked man has to have something there.
NO KEN DOLLS!!!
[Reply]
By Aunt Becky on Dec 28, 2009
One of my goals in life is to see a guy walk out of the bathroom with his wang hanging out of his pants, just normally. Pants buttoned, weenie hanging out, like it was nothing.
[Reply]
TJ Reply:
December 28th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
I’m going to send an email to your husband and ask him to pencil that into his calendar for some random day in 2010.
[Reply]
By Skraps on Dec 28, 2009
Full frontal-dude-ity is becoming more common now days. A large number of new comedies now feature flopping wang. The 3 most remembered:
1.) Marshal Ericson (I don’t know his real name) full frontal in “Forgetting Sarah Marshal” If you haven’t seen it I strongly recommend you do it is HIGH-larious.
2.) Jason Mewes – Zach and Miri Make a Porno. Kevin Smith directs Seth Roagen and Elizabeth Banks. Need I say more. Oh yeah a full 30 seconds of Jay (not Silent Bob) flopping wang.
3.) The Watchmen – Full frontal Blue-didity through most of the movie.
[Reply]
TJ Reply:
December 28th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
Only guys can really list off the exact time and duration and situation of full frontal in movies because as this post explains, it’s not really a chick thing.
[Reply]
By Awlbiste on Dec 28, 2009
Okay so this point came up on twitter while discussing the change in commenting tone.
There is a total and complete difference when IMAGINING a nude man and SEEING a nude man. Generally when IMAGINING the naked the general consensus is sort of in agreement on what a woman (really, not trying to be sexist here, but women-only club right now) envisions. In the IMAGINING part, usually the so-called “area” either is skipped over or kind of blurry or somewhat vague or doesn’t exist.
When it comes to REAL LIFE VISUAL naked then opinions clearly vary. Either from “meh” to “rather not” to “oh sweet, a penis.”
These are two different things.
In this comment: an entire blog post.
[Reply]
TJ Reply:
December 28th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Exactly. Two very different things. We’re definitely talking about mental naked here, the kind of mental naked that occurs inside of ladies’ heads, the kind of mental naked that usually includes exactly zero penises.
This is how you tell the difference, in case you’re confused:
Real naked: Has penis.
Mental naked in a lady’s head: Kind of vague about penile existence.
[Reply]
By shriek house on Dec 28, 2009
First, I’m supposed to be working and do you have any idea how difficult it is to guffaw *quietly*?
Second, my mental naked (if/when/infrequently it happens, sad to say) usually does not include a visual on the dangle, because it is, uh, TOO CLOSE TO BE SEEN. That is, the mental naked is just an extreme closeup of some jawline, neck, & shoulder. Get me?
However, just for the purposes of this exercise, I do note it is impossible to see the dangle in any other state than dangle-y if the man has anything approaching a normal facial expression. The other, more *attentive* — as in, at attention — state seems to unfortunately feature a Stimpy-esque Happy Happy Joy Joy dumbface.
As Elaine says to George and Seinfeld, “I don’t know how you guys walk around with those things.”
[Reply]
TJ Reply:
December 28th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
Re: walking around with that thing.
I know, right! I’ve said that to Phil before, you know, like “Isn’t it weird?” and he just gives me a look and says that no, in fact, it isn’t. But it’s out there. And dangling. So it must be.
But on the topic at hand, I agree with the close up point. Neck, shoulder, maybe some chest. If I’m seeing from farther away, actually, I think I actually usually include some low-hanging jeans, because of the way those ab muscles kind of go down into the jeans, you know, ok, let’s end there, but you know what I mean?
[Reply]
By Maria on Dec 28, 2009
Sometimes a well-groomed boner is ok. Otherwise, plz stop at hipbones and don’t ruin everything.
[Reply]
TJ Reply:
December 28th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
I’ll also cast a vote in favor of the occasional well-groomed boner, and ALSO a vote in favor of the occasional USE OF THE PHRASE “well-groomed boner”
[Reply]
Maria Reply:
December 28th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
I just failed some ridiculous Google Fu trying to find you this picture of Matthew McCounneghecan’tspellhisname naked except for someone else’s hand on his junk. It perfectly illustrates the “tackle on the outside just looks silly” theory.
[Reply]
TJ Reply:
December 28th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Well now I know how I am going to spend the entire rest of my afternoon.
[Reply]
TJ Reply:
December 28th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
OH MAN FOUND IT.
[Reply]
By Ambrosyne on Dec 28, 2009
I blame Ken dolls.
[Reply]
TJ Reply:
December 28th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
Hm… excellent point!
[Reply]
By Swistle on Dec 28, 2009
Mine have middles but only SIDE middles: the hip bone, yes, and then down the side where some of the really fit guys have, like, an indent on the side of the butt, and then down. No FRONT or BACK middles.
Also, this whole post was hilarious.
[Reply]
TJ Reply:
December 28th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
Oh man, I didn’t even think about it like that. Now I’m imagining men running around without front or back middles, but held together with side middles.
But you’re totally correct, the side middles are totally appealing. Side middles can stay. I don’t think I’ve ever hazied a side middle.
[Reply]
Maria Reply:
December 28th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
My friend made me watch a ridiculous movie about teen boy-witches starring, primarily, Taylor Kitch’s side-middles and hipbones.
[Reply]
By LeahKitten on Dec 28, 2009
Is it wrong that I imagine men with their clothes on? I mean I know that the body is beautiful and blah blah bullshit, but I’m with you. The penis is just, well, funny looking. And if I think too hard about a man naked then I might remember there’s back hair involved. So I prefer to fantasize about being undressed and taken advantage of because on the rare occasion that it might actually happen in real life it’s pretty awesome. Also I think I am still 12 years old. Even real life penises make me giggle.
[Reply]
TJ Reply:
December 28th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
Ha. There’s totally nothing wrong with fantasizing about a clothed man, I supposed. I doubt I think about unclothed men as often as men think about unclothed women.
Please note – I am not trying to make sweeping generalizations about men always thinking about naked ladies, but whatever, I’m totally making a sweeping generalization to suit my point.
But say, you know, you DID think of a man naked. I bet that whole area would be kind of vague, if it even factored in at all.
[Reply]
LeahKitten Reply:
December 28th, 2009 at 5:00 pm
I also think about naked ladies a lot. And I agree with you, I never think about the more detailed parts and pieces of the naked man.
[Reply]
By Iain on Dec 28, 2009
When I picture men it’s with the dangle attached. It’s not hazy; it’s imagined in full HDTV. (Arms are usually folded too, for some reason.) I think they look attractive.
But then I’m a gay man, so perhaps the gender difference accounts for the quality of the reception? :)
[Reply]
TJ Reply:
December 28th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
Veeerrrrry interesting. I think that the gender difference definitely accounts for that, reading through the comments. Apparently having a penis helps.
[Reply]
Angelya Reply:
January 14th, 2010 at 2:21 pm
And there, I think, is the root (so to speak) of it – women do not have penises, and we spend a small proportion of our time (compared to men anyway) looking at them, so our brains may have trouble with the visualization part. Men on the other hand have no such problem, as the gentleman above reveals. Personally, if I try to visualize dangly parts on my imaginary naked man it just makes me giggle so I stop to avoid funny looks.
Bit late commenting I know, but better late than never eh? :)
[Reply]
By BugginWord on Dec 28, 2009
OK, for starters, Maebius said “turgid.” GIGGLE.
Actually I can’t remember all the other witty profound things I was going to say before I started giggling at the word “turgid.”
There I did it again.
Oh yes, I can’t help but think of a mopey hound dog when I see a non-turgid (GIGGLE) penis betwixt some saggy balls. I’m just saying…
[Reply]
Iain Reply:
December 28th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
You mean flaccid? ;)
[Reply]
BugginWord Reply:
December 28th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
Also a funny word…but I’m so not done with turgid yet. TURGID!
[Reply]
Iain Reply:
December 28th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
There’s no word I can come up with that could beat that, you’re right =D
[Reply]
By Pj on Dec 28, 2009
I would have to say private parts in general are way more functional than aesthetically pleasing. At least fate had the decency to put a lady’s on the INSIDE, which likely explains why women look generally more attractive fully naked.
And also explains why I hide my bits even around my girlfriend when not, um, in action.
[Reply]
TJ Reply:
December 28th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
WHAT IS THAT EVEN ABOUT!
As the male currently in my line of e-sight, you are the one I am taking this out on.
Phil grabs my boobs whenever he feels like it, and he claims this is his right.
Now, I’m not saying I should be able to grab his balls whenever I want, but I’m saying that, around the house, IF HE IS WEARING ELASTIC PANTS, I should be able to peek in if the spirit moves me, which it only does ONCE IN A GREAT WHILE, a GREAT while, and he’s being a HUGE PRUDE about it.
WHAT IS THAT EVEN ABOUT?
[Reply]
Pj Reply:
December 28th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
TJ – You want the HONEST “dude” answer?
Modesty.
See, your breasts don’t (generally, I assume) grow and shrink at whim.
But our man part does. And when it’s, um, resting, it’s nowhere near as proud a show moment as when it’s, er, awake.
Though I have to say, any man who has a woman willing and interested to toy with his bits at any given moment should suck it up and be happy to have such a blessing.
[Reply]
Iain Reply:
December 29th, 2009 at 2:16 am
I think the term “suck it up” was a really unfortunate one to use in this context =D
[Reply]
Awlbiste Reply:
December 28th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
I once had a boyfriend who would put on a bathrobe immediately after er, sexytimes, just to get up to go pee or something.
Come on, I *just* saw your penis, what’s with the modesty?
[Reply]
By Bernie on Dec 29, 2009
My wife waits until the men walk past then she pictures them nekkid. She’s into tushies.
[Reply]
By Mary on Dec 29, 2009
Out of curiosity.. what movie was it? (re: Craig Ferguson)
[Reply]
TJ Reply:
December 29th, 2009 at 7:00 am
It was called Saving Grace, and it was basically almost exactly the plot of that show Weeds, except way before that show ever came on!
[Reply]
By Darcy on Dec 29, 2009
He was skipping naked? I find skipping even more ridiculous than dangly parts. One time I was standing in front of a building on a campus making a phone call while a woman I didn’t know was smoking on a bench across from me. I looked and there was a very tall, good-looking athletic young guy skipping up the walk. The walkway was very long, so this process took a while. The woman and I watched wordlessly as he skipped all the way up, paused, threw a soda bottle into the blue can next to me, and then calmly walked on. The woman said, “Did you see that?!? He recycled!”
[Reply]
TJ Reply:
December 29th, 2009 at 10:08 am
I totally agree that skipping, on the whole, is kind of ridiculous. I can get behind a kind of… exuberant gallop, if you’re excited to meet up with a particular person you see in the distance. But a grown person aimlessly skipping, what with the coordinated skipping motion… and yes. The naked man in the movie was skipping. WITH FULL DANGLE DANGLING ACTION.
[Reply]
Darcy Reply:
December 29th, 2009 at 10:26 am
Any girl who has ever skipped knows that a ponytail swings jauntily back and forth with the skipping action… need I say more?
[Reply]
By Seinfeld ftw on Dec 29, 2009
As an above reader eluded to, Seinfeld really nailed this one:
Jerry: “Well, I was walking around naked in front of Melissa the other day–”
Elaine: “Whoa! Walking around naked? Ahh… that is not a good look for a man.”
George: “Why not? It’s a good look for a woman.”
Elaine: “Well, the female body is a… work of art. The male body is
utilitarian, it’s for gettin’ around, like a jeep.”
Jerry: “So you don’t think it’s attractive?”
Elaine: “It’s hideous. The hair, the… the lumpiness. It’s simian.”
George: “Well, some women like it.”
Elaine: “Hmm. Sickies.”
[Reply]