As a warning to those reading this book, while the vast majority of photographs are fine (or as fine as nude photographs can go in proper context), some pictures towards the end of the book are outright pornographic, with models being either aroused or groping one another. As such, this book strays into the debates on the definition of "art," whether eroticism has a proper place in art, and whether pornography can in any way be classified as art. The author seems to not only think that pornography qualifies, but longs for the day when nudity is everyday and ordinary (a little bit of "pagan refreshment" as he calls it). But if something becomes too common, it risks losing its power. Interestingly, he noted that historically (post-Roman and pre-1960s) males were hesitant to be seen naked, especially by women, as this was a sign of weakness and reduction in power. Rather than see that weakness as something beautiful when reserved to its proper place (and thereby truly become a strength, in certain ways), he would reduce it to the common and commercial.
The book is divided into eras, with the author going over some historical developments relating to the male nude in art during those eras. His history isn't always bad (though he has idiotic assertions such as "the eastern churches didn't allow depictions of humans"), but his interpretations certainly are. If a man photographed another man naked, it's because of homosexual inclinations. If an artist focused on mythology as a subject, it was merely a method to photograph male nudes and not for the inherent artistry which the setting could provide. In this way, he reads into the artists minds more than should be allowed (and without providing any basis for the assertions), intent to mold all men to his own (somewhat perverted) vision.
While there were some beautiful images and great references in the book, I can't help but feel a little dirty after reading it. And that isn't a good sign for a supposed "art" book.