Protecting Our Privacy
In a day and time where Privacy is a key buzz word in the information about us that gets shared by our doctor and our creditors, how much care is taken to protect our Privacy in social settings?
I’m thinking in particular about health clubs, where I have held memberships all of my adult life. Since my memberships have been in a variety of clubs across the country, I have a broad sample (although not scientifically precise) from which to draw observations.
My observations rest on two dimensions: (1) the behavior/attitudes of the participants, and (2) the physical structures themselves.
The behavior/attitude dimension must be further classified into (A) exhibitor or (B) observer. It has been my observation that men as exhibitors range across the entire spectrum from extremely private to very exhibitionistic. It is also clear that where a person falls is not determined by whether they are gay or straight. This scale seems to be a function of an entirely different set of criteria. We could have an in-depth probe about the reasons for where a person falls along this scale, such as body shame for the private person vs. narcissism for the exhibitionist. Clearly, the reasons are much more complex than that. For now, suffice it to say that people fall along the scale at different points.
The physical structures, mostly, are designed such that the exhibitionist is comfortable and the private person is not. For example, the lockers generally provide little privacy while a man changes from his street clothes to his workout clothes or his swimming trunks. Furthermore, men’s showers are generally big open bins with ten or more water heads for men to shower. It is nearly impossible for a man to maintain his privacy while showering in such a structure. This is further exacerbated if he wants to sit in the whirlpool. The whirlpool is generally located in an open area within the men’s spa area. Men are instructed to shower before entering the whirlpool. If other men are already in the whirlpool, it is nearly impossible for the man entering to not be fully observed in his nude state as he enters. He is subject to the good graces of the other men to simply turn their heads and not look at him as he enters. Although there is generally no rule that forbids wearing swimming trunks, it goes against the social norm. Since the other men are fully nude, it makes one look odd if he gets in the whirlpool with swimming trunks on; it then silently raises questions of his sexual comfort level.
I recall one specific incident in a steam room full of people. One or more guys were engaged in subtle but apparent sexual gesturing with each other. Most of us in the room pretended not to notice what was going on. All of a sudden though, one man burst out in a fit of rage and told them (with use of very profane language) to stop doing what they were doing. Of course, a deadening hush fell over the room, and within seconds the room cleared out. I think, although most of us didn’t agree with his method, we applauded (1) his courage, and (2) his message: you don’t have the right to invade my space with your sexual behavior!
In addition to the dimension scale of exhibitor, we have the observer (and, of course, one may fit both of these roles). Regardless of where one fits along the exhibition scale, the question comes into play: What right does another have to look at one’s private parts?
This becomes the core question of this chapter.
If we are in a physical structure where people are placed in proximity to each other with no barriers, is it expected that they will look at each other?
Does one give up his right to privacy by visiting a health club (or other social structure) where there are common dressing/spa facilities?
Is it unreasonable to expect that if I am naked, you will turn your head away?
Why does the structure not have more privacy built in?
Does the lack of privacy facilitate inappropriate sexual lust and/or activity?
Is there an assumption (correct or incorrect) that nude men will not see each other as sexual objects and therefore it doesn’t matter?
What should a man do when he finds another man looking at him and he finds it objectionable?
Does a man have a right to look at another man in the shower/spa on the premise that privacy rights are surrendered when joining the club?
The other implicit question -- and one which bears spiritual/moral implications -- is whether or not one man’s looking at another man’s nudity (1) violates the privacy of the object, and (2) objectifies sexuality for the observer. Often among gay men a topic of conversation is something called “eye candy.” This is, for example, when person A has gone to the gym and seen person B (either dressed or undressed) who is deemed attractive. Person A then goes home and calls his friends to share the exciting news about the fabulous guy he just saw. The spiritual/moral problem with this is that person A has made person B into a sex object. Rather than being attracted to him as a total person, he is only attracted to his physical appearance. He may or may not have any desire to get to know person B at any more than a physical level.
Clearly, these dynamics get more complex across the sexes. There are very limited social structures that allow nudity with both sexes. Nudist clubs are not comparable to the structures in our discussion because they are designed specifically for people who have a need to be nude around other people.
If we assume that these structures were built with open frameworks because nude men will not see each other as sexual objects and therefore it doesn’t matter, perhaps that ignores reality. Indeed that is the reality for some men. However, even for some men who have absolutely no sexual interest in other men, there is a level of curiosity. I classify observations into two categories: (1) information, and (2) sexual desire. Often men want information, i.e., they want to see how they “stack up” against other men. They will look at other men in the locker room with absolutely no sexual interest, but with a clear desire to gather information about how they are physically as compared to other men: they are gathering information. When they feel safe, they will sometimes even enter into light conversation and social banter about their physical characteristics. This will include much more than just the genitalia; the entire body structure is discussed. Paradoxically, there is a certain level of locker room ease expected to show that one is not homophobic.
We posed the earlier question: Does one give up his right to privacy by visiting a health club? It brings to mind a conversation I had with my youngest son years ago when he was about ten years of age. In that conversation I told him, “No one ever has the right to invade your privacy: PERIOD.” That is an issue about which I feel very emphatic. Regardless of where a person is, their body belongs to them. If they choose to share it, that is their choice. It is a flagrant invasion of privacy, though, for anyone else to try to sneak a peak or in any way look at them without tacit permission to do so. The often quoted phrase, “Your freedom to swing your arm stops at the tip of my nose” is appropriate here. There are many times in society when we are in shared space. From childhood one of the primary learnings that we must grasp is how to negotiate shared space.
So at a spiritual level, what is one to do if he finds himself at the gym with nude men around and he is compelled toward looking at them? He has learned that it is wrong because he is (1) violating their sacred space, and (2) objectifying them. But how does he move from this knowledge to the empowerment to not look? This is clearly a lust of the flesh. It is no different than a lust to drink, smoke, do drugs, or shop excessively -- except that it derives from a natural human sexual need.
The answer lies in realizing that it is not a simple on/off switch. The need for sexual union is natural and its fulfillment derives from a complex set of biological and environmental inputs. Changing this current behavior must start with going within rather than without. Nothing outside will bring about the needed change. As one goes within, he will find much brokenness and dissatisfaction. The need to objectify others is a need to fantasize the internal confusion. If one observes the patterns over the years, it becomes apparent that no amount of looking at good-looking guys -- nude or otherwise -- has solved the internal problem. In a strange sort of way, it may even serve to deepen the problem. Much like a piece of chocolate candy, it seems good for the moment, but (1) it doesn’t have a lasting beneficial effect, and (2) like candy causes bad physical health, lusting causes bad emotional health. At best, it leaves us wanting another fix. Over and over again we go looking for something that isn’t there, until we come to find that we’re looking for love in all the wrong places. No matter how gorgeous that guy’s body is; he isn’t me. I will never be him. My real problem is I want to become him. Over and over I find bits and pieces of the ideal that I wish I were, embodied in other people. I trick myself into feeling that by connecting with it I can become part of it -- if only temporarily. But achieving union with it really doesn’t change who I am. One day I realize: You can’t get there from here. As gorgeous as he is, I’m still stuck with me; and no body wants me. Oh, what a wretched man that I am. Somebody deliver me from the power of this death!
Once I get to this point of utter despair, then I’m on my road to recovery.
