The house/room of women:
The home or room of a woman is obligated to have a Mezuzah. If it is a room which serves as an actual place of dwelling, then it is obligated to have a Mezuzah even if she is accustomed to be unclothed inside the room, and even is she sleeps there with her husband, and marital relations are performed in the room. However there are Poskim that are lenient to not require a Mezuzah in any room which a woman lays in. However even according to them, this only applies if the Mezuzah can only be placed on the side of the doorpost that is within the room, however if it can be placed on the side of the doorpost which is outside the room [when the door is closed], then according to all there exists an obligation to place a Mezuzah there.
Covering the Mezuzah: When placing a Mezuzah on the door of rooms in which women at times are undressed, it is best for the Mezuzah to be covered, although from the letter of the law this is not required. One should use a see through covering in such areas so the Mezuzah still remains visible. In a room where a couple has marital relations, the Mezuzah must be covered in a way that it cannot be seen. It is disputed in Poskim whether this Mezuzah needs to have a double covering. Practically, one may be lenient like those opinions which do not require it.
Rooms not of dwelling: All rooms which are not actual rooms of dwelling, such as a storage room, in which a woman or man are accustomed to be naked in, such as a shower, are not to have a Mezuzah placed by their entrance.
The house or room of a woman is obligated to have a Mezuzah, just as the house or room of a man. If one at times is naked in the room, one is to make sure the Mezuzah parchment is covered with at least one covering. If a couple has marital relations in the room, and the Mezuzah is placed inside the room, then the Mezuzah is to be covered with a non-transparent cover. If upon closing the door, the Mezuzah is outside the room, it does not need any covering.
 Michaber 186/1
The reason: As also women require the reward of life that is given for fulfilling this Mitzvah. [Shach 286/4; Kedushin 34a] The Gemara ibid explains that although Mezuzah is not a time related Mitzvah, and therefore even without above reason, women should be obligated, nevertheless the above reason is needed as otherwise a juxtaposition would have been made with the verse of Mezuzah and the verse of Talmud Torah, of which woman are exempt.
 Smak; Kol Bo; Mordechai
Ruling of the Bach: The Bach writes, based on the above opinions, that any room in which a woman is accustomed to be naked in, such as when showering, a Mezuzah may not be placed on the doorpost being that it is a disgrace for the holy parchment. Due to this, says the Bach, the custom became to only place a Mezuzah on the door which leads to the outside of the house, and not in any of the inner rooms, being that woman are accustomed to shower naked in those rooms at different times of the year. However recently, the custom has become to place Mezuzahs on all of one’s doorposts, although care must be taken not to place them in rooms which woman bathe in, as explained above. [Bach, brought in Shach 286/9] Thus we see that the Bach held that one should follow like this lenient opinion. However the Shach and the Taz both conclude that all rooms should have Mezuzahs which are covered and thus avoid the above problem according to all. [Shach 286/9; Taz 286/5]
 Rama 286/2
 Rama ibid
Why covering the Mezuzah does not suffice according to this opinion: Seemingly, as explained in previous note, if the Mezuzah is covered the issues are avoided according to all. Why does the Rama not make mention of this? [Perhaps the lenient opinion above only obligates to place a Mezuzah when it will be visible. This is also implied from the fact that otherwise what would be the argument between the two opinions, as seemingly even according to the stringent opinion one needs to cover the Mezuzahs when placed in rooms that women are naked in, and thus we must be discussing here that the Mezuzah is covered according to all, and nevertheless the lenient opinion still exempts when its placed on the inside. However one could argue that according to the stringent opinion there is no need to cover the Mezuzah if its above 10 teach, as mentioned in Taz 286/5, and thus the argument is not discussing a covered Mezuzah. Alternatively] one can explain that the lenient opinion does not require a Mezuzah in any area which is not honorable, irrelevant to whether the Mezuzah is covered or not, and on this the Shach and Taz rule stringently. See note 18 which seems to proof like this explanation.
 Shach 286/9 and Taz 286/5
 The reason: As since the Mezuzah is above 10 Tefach from the ground it is considered as if it is in a different area. [See Siddur Admur regarding Sefarim that are on a table ten Tefach high]
 Taz 286/5
The reason: Although the Mezuzah will still remains visible through its case, nevertheless the Torah was only stringent that the Mezuzah be covered in front of an Erva, and covered it is. This is similar to the law regarding covering excrement before praying. [Taz ibid]
 Taz 286/5; Admur 40/5
The reason: As relations is considered like Ervah of which the Torah requires to be covered in a way that it cannot be seen at all. [Taz ibid]
 The Magan Avraham is stringent to require two coverings while the Taz is lenient claiming that since the Mezuzah is attached to the wall its considered part of the wall, which is not considered as part of the room that relations is being done in.
May one covering be of see through material? According to all one cover may be of see through material. [Admur 40/5]
 Admur 40/5
 Michaber 286/2;
The reason: It is not honorable towards G-d to place a Mezuzah in such areas.