A few years ago (in late 2012 and early 2013) in the Leopold Museum in Vienna, an exhibition titled "Naked Men - from 1800 to today" was organized. The exhibition was accompanied by numerous scandals, from posters announcing the exhibition to questioning the need for such an exhibition to be organized at all. The poster announcing the exhibition featured the work of Pierre et Gilles - "Vive la France," showing three naked young men - football players, dressed only in socks and cleats in the colors of the French flag. The young men were of different races (black, yellow, and white), which, according to artistic understanding, was supposed to symbolize racial, religious, gender, and every other freedom of French citizens. However, in Vienna, after these posters announcing the exhibition appeared, there were numerous protests, and one grandmother threatened to take paint and repaint the "controversial spots" herself, after which the organizers decided to cover the nudity on the posters with red ribbons. A similar scandal accompanied the same exhibition at the Musée d'Orsay in Paris. France, which celebrates diversity and freedom, succumbed to the onslaught of naked men.

Did anyone notice what it was really about, what the artistic work and the poster were conveying, or did everyone just see uncovered male genitalia? This raises the question of where the fear of the penis and the naked male body comes from, given that naked female bodies "adorn" billboards and advertisements of various companies, which often have no connection to the production of something that affects body beauty but rather use the female body as a tool to attract the attention of potential buyers, male or female alike. Yet another question arises in this regard: did any grandmother or grandfather even pay attention to such an advertisement or, better yet, to such a form of exploitation of the female body, let alone the idea of taking paint and repainting all those advertisements that do not carry any concrete, let alone noble message, but only degrade the female body. If we pay a little attention, we will see that the female body is increasingly exposed; it is involved in various advertisements, movies, artistic works, while there is a tendency to censor and conceal the male body in its depiction. Since the dominant perception of the world in society is male, why then is the male body a negative category? Where does the fear of a man's own body come from!?

In the text "Body and Narrative," Peter Brooks observes that in world literature, there are no descriptions of the male body or very few in comparison to the female body. Brooks sees the reasons for this in the following: "It turns out that in patriarchal societies, the male body is obviously visible, unspoken of as a subject of curiosity or representation, and therefore better concealed. One paradox is evident: if the male body becomes the norm with patriarchy, or the standard by which the other is evaluated (thus creating the enigma of women), then we might expect the male body to be more openly exposed and discussed. A cursory glance allows us to conclude that the paradox is only apparent. Precisely because it is the norm, the male body is hidden from scrutiny; it is an agent, not an object of knowledge: looking is "phallic," its object is not." If, however, the male body is the norm by which the female body is evaluated and examined, why then such fear of the male body as something dominant? Why then such frequent "use" of uncensored female bodies in art (literature, film, theater) and other media (advertisements) and such a desire to cover and censor the male body? Why has such inappropriate power relation between male and female emerged, if the man is dominant, then everything is allowed for him, even to walk naked on the streets, completely normally, without any condemnation. Is such fear of one man from another inspired by the homophobic practice nurtured through the centuries, or is it something entirely different? It is also surprising that at the Metropolitan Museum in New York, of the total number of exhibits (sculptures, paintings, photographs) showing naked bodies, only 15% of them depict naked male bodies. It is interesting that the modern world has developed a special mechanism for body production (gyms, massages, fitness), yet it has not addressed this phenomenon, still considering it something prohibited but nonetheless self-evident and clear. It is also interesting that feminist-oriented theorists do not raise this question. For them, the body and corporeality are at the forefront in the context of the opposition between man and woman, as the opposition of mind and body, in which the mind is equivalent to masculinity, and the body is equivalent to femininity (see: Gros 2005) and measures to change that. Consequently, according to such views, the heterosexual man is usually a misogynist, which is a very strange paradox because all world art originated and still originates in the celebration of women, female beauty, the female body. On the other hand, it is a fact that women are still not full members of society in many countries worldwide and that women are most often exposed to violence in marriage. How to explain these paradoxes in the society we belong to!?

In the text "Discursive Constraints of Gender," Judith Butler discusses the impossibility of describing gender in contemporary philosophy, art, and society without a term that contains both characteristics of gender as a natural given and replaces it, simultaneously expanding meanings, introducing a politically correct term - gender: "If gender consists of social meanings that assume sex, then sex does not sharpen social meanings as additional properties, but is replaced by those social meanings it takes over; in the course of that elevation, sex is canceled, and gender appears not as a member in a permanent relation of opposition to sex but as a member that absorbs and displaces "sex," from which it is seen that sex has been completely substantialized into gender or, from a materialist point of view, completely desubstantialized." By accepting diversity, the world has accepted and recognized the right to exist of all previously marginalized groups, so some of the largest gay pride parades in the world have become places of gathering and public display for all marginalized sexual groups, yet the exhibition of artworks showing naked male bodies is still seen as a problem.

Is patriarchal experience really to blame to such an extent for the non-acceptance of anything that depicts the naked male body, because if so, then where does the acceptance of all sexual and gender differences come from? The problem also arises in men themselves who think they know everything about their bodies, and talking about or going to an exhibition about it is completely gay, which again raises the question of whether this exhibition was created as an exhibition intended for the gay population? The exhibition was not intended for the gay population (although that population was probably the most common visitor to the exhibition), the naked male body is certainly equally artistically representative as the female, it's just that Europe and the world have not yet liberated themselves from Cartesian and puritan morals. Then what happens to women, how come even women were not thrilled with such a setup, how come one woman wants to take paint and repaint all the penises on the posters, instead of seeing it as an indication of something that will be called the beginning of equal treatment of male and female bodies! Wolfgang Schmale, in his book "History of Masculinity in Europe 1450-2000" traces the development and understanding of masculinity throughout the marked period of history and concludes that the hegemonic masculinity, manifested in a healthy, muscular body, characterized by clarity and speed of judgment, strong will, and activity, which implies bellicosity - maintains a constant developmental line that will not only persist into the early decades of the 21st century but also gain new, seemingly stronger momentum.

Therefore, the militarized man is the dominant model of manhood that has persisted through the centuries, and such a man does not fit into the model that would look favorably upon the naked body of another man, even if it were art. This may instill fear in him that he may inadvertently reveal what he does not wish to or already hides, leading to discrimination in society. Hence, even an artist who may wish to depict the male body in film, painting, photography, fearing various qualifications and societal condemnations, often abandons their intention. Therefore, the acceptance of marginalized gender groups is, in fact, acceptance with condemnation! A man may accept bathing in the same bathroom with a crowd of other men or relieving himself in front of them, but he will only accept to view an exhibition displaying naked male bodies when he overcomes the fear of what others might say. After all, a man is a sensitive being—a being that fears!

References:
Schmale, Wolfgang. "History of Masculinity in Europe 1450-2000." Translated by Vladimir Babić. Belgrade: Clio, 2011.
Butler, Judith. "Discursive Constraints on Gender." Translated by Slavica Miletić. Word 56, no. 2 (1999): 145-161.
Brooks, Peter. "Body and Narrative." Translated by Brana Milovanov. Word 57, no. 3 (2000): 247-267.
Gros, Elizabeth. "Variable Bodies: Toward Bodily Feminism." Translated by Tatjana Popović. Belgrade: Center for Women's Studies and Gender Research, 2005.