Women:

There is a significant audience in the Indian sub-continent for images of unshaven women, specifically those with underarm hair.

There are several Adult Yahoo Groups for Aunties (their equivalent of MILFs) with hairy and sweaty armpits. The subset for hairy South Indian Aunties has over 10,000 members.

Electric Blue and Oggbashan, thanks for your contributions to this thread. In her talk Emer O’Toole states that believing that “. . . female body hair is abhorrent while male body hair is acceptable is sexist plain and simple . . .” and “. . . so growing my body hair then has really given me a sense of the power of social conditioning . . ..” In that sense a woman allowing her body to grow hair is a challenge to social norms as is the emphasis on the clitoris. It is also a challenge to many people’s concept of what is beautiful or ugly and is somewhat like women becoming more comfortable with wearing pants during the 1890s and early 20th century and. This ties into much of what I and others wrote in the thread “The Male Form.”

Moonlight and Roses,

In my last post I wrote that the emphasis on the clitoris is a challenge to social norms. I would like to explain that now.

In his 1865 book "Functions and Disorders of the Reproductive Organs . . ." see here: https://www.bl.uk/collection-items/19th-century-medical-views-on-female-sexuality, gynaecological doctor William Acton wrote "the majority of women (happily for them) are not very much troubled by sexual feeling of any kind." At the above link for the British Library it is stated that "Although Acton's views are not representative of the whole 19th century population, they nevertheless reflect that sex was seen by many - including medical professionals - as something exclusively enjoyed by men while women, in contrast, passively endured it for the purpose of reproduction only."

Now, imagine a woman who enjoys sex, including masturbation and has not discussed sexual issues with other women being told by her doctor (who almost certainly would be male) that "the majority of women (happily for them) are not very much troubled by sexual feeling of any kind."

It seems to me that many men in the 19th century and perhaps even today prefer to think that women do not enjoy sex as much as men do, so as to justify the idea that a man could fool around before and even when he is married, but yet expect a woman to be a virgin on her wedding night and to be faithful to her husband.

Since, at least, the publication of Mary Wollstonecraft's "A Vindication of the Rights of Woman" in 1792, women have been attempting to gain control over their own lives and to assert that their feelings and ambitions are as valid as men's. The recent attention being paid to the clitoris, the only organ in the human body whose sole purpose is pleasure, is the latest stage in that struggle and therefore is a challenge to those social norms.

Moonlight and Roses,

Back in the end of October (comments #171 and #174) I wrote about and posted links to pictures and videos dealing with women with unshaven underarms and legs. I meant to extend that to unshaven pubic areas, so here goes. These links go to images of nude women with unshaven pubic areas and in some cases underarms. For want of a better word I feel the images are “tame” (legs kept together):

These appear to be vintage images:

Picture, Picture

And these appear to be more current:

Picture, Picture, Picture, Picture

Moonlight and Roses,

This continuing thread on the General Board celebrates female bodily hair:

http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=1466569&page=5

It's a cultural thing. In some countries being shaven or epilated is considered odd and unusual; in others leaving bodily hair, particularly underarm hair is possibly offensive.

What is 'normal' in the USA is abnormal in some other places.

Oggbashan, thank you for the link. I agree it is a cultural thing and I’m interested in understanding why cultures are different and why they change.

I wrote a story (not on Literotica) with two identical twin sisters. One shaved all of her body hair, straightened and dyed her hair blonde and wore lots of makeup, the other let all of her body hair grow out - underarms, legs and pubic area, left her brown hair curly and did not wear makeup.

Moonlight and Roses,

Some people seemed to have expressed an interest in the following topic. This is quite long, but I feel I cannot adequately explain what I mean in a shorter post. Even with this I simplified things.

What interests me is that during the 20th century and even into the 21st century as women gained more independence and became more assertive they began to expose more of their bodies. This may seem counterintuitive. After all everyone “knows” that men want to see naked women and therefore in a society where men dominated more it would seem that women would be “forced” to be naked as much as possible. But this misses some important points. During the 19th century it was difficult for women to earn a reasonable income so many depended on men – fathers, brothers and most important husbands – to provide them financially. On top of this men generally wanted their wives to be chaste, so that these wives would not cheat on them with other men, but also so as mothers these wives would bring their children up morally. Additionally, during the 19th and to a lesser degree even up to now for a woman to reveal too much of her body was and is considered immoral and unchaste. Lastly, during the 19th century men didn’t want their wives to be too independent. So, women had a financial incentive to show men that they were chaste, moral and not able to get around very easily. This lead to women dressing in a chaste many, not showing too much of their bodies and wearing clothing that hindered them in getting around.

After the French Revolution women started to wear lighter more comfortable clothing – the Empire and Regency styles or what I think of as the Jane Austen style. This seemed to be a result of a reaction against the styles of the Aristocrats, but also of the idea of individual freedom. However, by the 1820s women’s fashions again became bulky and limiting. About the time of the Seneca Falls Women’s Rights Conference of 1848, the idea of the Bloomer was thought of. Bloomers were baggy “Turkish” pants that were worn under a short skirt and were named after Amelia Jenks Bloomer. She had attended the Seneca Falls meeting and became active in the women’s rights movement and as part of this promoted bloomers as she felt they would give women more freedom and thus bloomers were connected with the idea of women rights. For various reasons bloomers did not catch on much them, but they were revived during the 1890s, in part because women wanted the freedom that came with riding bicycles. During all of this time women increasingly found it easier to earn reasonable incomes and the Women’s Rights movement progressed leading to women becoming more assertive. The next big jump was the ratification of 19th amendment to the US Constitution in 1920, which guarantied all US women the same rights to vote as men had. What I find particularly interesting is that it was around this time that women’s fashions changed to become lighter and less bulky and also so as to reveal more of the wearer’s body. This leads me to believe that women being able to earn more and become more independent of men and as women became more assertive was connected in some way with women becoming willing to dress more for their own comfort and enjoyment by wearing lighter, more revealing and more comfortable clothing, including bathing suits.

One reason for such a connection could be that women being able to earn more and become more independent of men and as women became more assertive lead to women becoming willing to dress more for their own comfort and enjoyment by wearing lighter, more revealing and more comfortable clothing, including bathing suits. An example of this is Annette Kellerman (b.1887 in Australia). She was champion swimmer and diver and during the beginning of the 20th century began to wear bathing suits that allowed her to swim better and more comfortably. She was arrested on Revere Beach in Boston for indecent exposure when she wore a Maillot Pantaloon (see here: http://www.bikini-science.com/models/AK19_SS/AK0750_S/AK0750_J/AK075050.JPG). So, here was a woman, who was famous and finically independent who wore such a shocking outfit in order to be comfortable. An additional example is the recent “Topfree” movement where women are demanding to be legally able to bare their tops, actually their nipples, anywhere a man can. Comfort is one reason given by these women for their demand.

Another reason for the above connection could be that a third factor lead to both women becoming willing to dress more for their own comfort and enjoyment by wearing lighter, more revealing and more comfortable clothing and women being able to earn more and become more independent of men and more assertive. This third factor could have been an increasing relaxing of cultural norms in particular gender roles and taboos on showing the body. Thus the relaxing of gender roles resulted in women being more able to work outside of the home and at higher paying jobs and the relaxing of taboos on showing the body resulted in women showing more of their bodies. These two ideas are not so different and I feel it is likely that both have had some influence. So, in either case it is not men who are forcing women to reveal more of their bodies, but women who are choosing to do so.

Again in either case as women revealed more of their bodies they also shaved more of their body hair. But now more and more women are allowing their body hair to grow out and this could be a result of women feeling even more independent and assertive.

Moonlight and Roses,

The above post is long but I think it misses some significant facts.

In England before the 19th Century women had more rights than they had during that century. Laws were introduced to 'protect' women. Although the intentions were good, particularly for women employed in factories, the changes took away rights married women had previously had.

In Wales women could and did own property in their own right and the woman's property did not become the husband's when she married.

Trades guilds in cities were enlightened before the 19th century. A woman could become a member of a guild and run a business. In my wife's family one of her ancestors was a waterman - carrying goods and passengers by boat around London. He died suddenly of a heart attack. His widow took over his waterman's licence and her sons, previously apprenticed to their father, had their apprenticeships transferred to their mother as the 'master' waterman. It wasn't unusual for a widow to continue her deceased husband's trade in her own right.

One of my maternal great-grandmothers owned a horse-bus company in the 19th Century, employing her husband as a bus-driver.

On my father's line many of them were scriveners (letter writers and legal clerks) and printers. Many of the women of the family were also apprentice-served scriveners and printers too.

What women in England gained in the 20th Century were many rights - except voting - that had been taken away from them in the 19th. Until the various reform acts of the 19th Century very few people male or female could vote in elections. They had to be substantial property owners to vote, and a very few woman had enough property in their own right to be voters. It was a bare handful of women across England who could and did vote. Most women who had enough property didn't know that they could vote.

Oggbashan, thanks for the reply. You wrote “In England before the 19th Century women had more rights than they had during that century.” I wrote that “During the 19th century it was difficult for women to earn a reasonable income so many depended on men – fathers, brothers and most important husbands – to provide them financially.” It maybe that prior to the 19th century that women were less dependent on men, but that was not was not my point. The Married Women’s Property Act of 1870 and 1882 did improve the lot for married women allowing them eventually to control their own property. I believe that conditions for women became better during the 19th century and I wrote “During all of this time [meaning the 19th century] women increasingly found it easier to earn reasonable incomes and the Women’s Rights movement progressed leading to women becoming more assertive.” It would seem that your great-grandmother would have owned a horse-bus company during the later 19th century and I agree that women had become financially more independent by that time, but I don’t believe they were, in general, as independent as men. This article states that “Before 1918 no women were allowed to vote in parliamentary elections:” http://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/electionsvoting/womenvote/. However, this article states that “. . . 58% of the adult male population was eligible to vote before 1918:” http://www.parliament.uk/about/livi...y/electionsvoting/womenvote/overview/thevote/.

Basically my point is that women were financially dependent on men during the 19th century, but things improved during that time. Also, as these things improved women’s fashions became less bulky and more revealing.

Moonlight and Roses,

MoonlightandRoses,

What I wrote and your post above are not contradictions.

The majority of women were considered as second class citizens, or even not citizens in their own right, until they achieved the vote.

Women before the 20th Century and even during most of that century did not have the same employment rights (or pay! a sore point even now) than men. The real oppression was lack of reasonable educational access for women until the 1870 Education Act.

The Married Women's Property Acts restored rights women had BEFORE the 19th Century. Their rights, even if many didn't know they had them and didn't assert them, were removed 'to protect' women in the earlier 19th Century.

'No women were allowed to vote...' is not completely true. A very few women could and did vote because they had property qualifications. The ban on them voting was not universal across England and some women had managed to vote.

The watermen I mentioned had women 'masters' from the 16th Century, as did many trades guilds. Women were a minority but they were not prevented from becoming tradespeople. The first women doctors in the UK qualified as 'barber surgeons' because the main medical profession would not admit women.

Women were financially dependent? Many were. Many weren't. Some were the major earner in a family. If the husband died women had to find an income somehow or end up in the workhouse. Women domestic servants were a major part of the employed population and could rise to considerable status even if a housekeeper was always paid less than a butler.

Researches into my and my wife's ancestors shows many women as providing a significant part of the family income, or if widowed, the whole of it - from the 16th Century onwards. Homeworking in towns and cities was commonplace even if badly paid. Women and disabled men could earn money assembling products, weaving, sewing and even keeping poultry. One family in the first decade of the 19th Century in a local census had the father, mother, son and unmarried daughters all recorded as 'gardeners' running the family market garden business.

Women's opportunities in the 18th and 19th Centuries are often underestimated. Women worked in cotton mills in vast numbers, and in other factories as well. Until the laws were changed in the early 19th Century women and children worked underground in coal mines - from as early as age 8.

Opportunities for self-improvement for women were scarce. Education was expensive and usually reserved for the boys. But on my father's line all the women from 1837 when records of marriage, births and deaths were started had signed their names in person - not 'Charlotte her mark'. The whole family were scriveners or printers so the girls were taught to read and write - probably at home.

Locally a National School was built in 1810. It had two rooms, one for boys and one for girls. Both sexes were taught 'reading, writing and 'rithmetic' - the 3 R's. But there was a fee to attend. When families were broke only the boys were paid for.

Oggbashan, as you wrote our posts are not contradictions. Again thank you for your contribution.

Moonlight and Roses,

What’s next? Well on most beaches it is, where I live at least and for all practical purposes, legal for women to wear thongs on the beach that is be nude from the back and in New York State it is legal for women to bare their tops (be topfree) anywhere that man can. So, it is for all practical purposes legal for women to appear on the beach wearing only a tiny triangle, perhaps 4 square inches of cloth. These women could, from even a short distance, appear completely nude and with that happening I could easily see that women might then start to, for their own comfort and enjoyment, wear absolutely nothing at the beach. Imagine a woman who went to the beach, but forget her tiny triangular bathing suit in which she might appear to be completely nude anyway. Such a woman might then think who cares and just sunbath in the nude. At the same time I can imagine men, particularly young men, still wearing long, baggy bathing suits that come down to their knees and which do not even hint that these men have a penis.

Moonlight and Roses,

Locally we have a nudist beach about a mile away. The nearest footpath is about 200 yards away and has no view of the beach. Getting to that nudist beach? Covered legs and sturdy footwear are recommended, but once there you can shed all your clothing.

Until the local byelaw was abolished - in 2004! - the main bathing beaches had the following rules:

1. No mixed bathing between 7 am and 10 pm.
2. Women should use the Eastern Beach.
3. Men should use the Western Beach.
4. Children up to their 10th birthday should use the women's beach. After their 10th birthday they should use the sex-appropriate beach.
5. All bathers must change in a beach hut or tent out of view of the public.
6. Men and Women must wear the regulation so-called 'University' swimming costume that covers chest, back, arms and legs for three inches.
7. No person wearing a swimming costume is allowed beyond the beach front road. (As originally drafted in 1870 they weren't allowed beyond the promenade - and the toilets were the other side of the road! In theory bathers had to change before going to the toilets.)

Beach huts can be hired from the Council. University swimming costumes with the Council's logo prominently displayed front and back can be hired from the council. They rarely fitted, were made of wool and became very heavy and sagged when wet.

The people in this picture are breaking the law. They have no sleeves and they are together on the same beach.



The locals had been ignoring the law since about 1905 but as I said above it was still a law until 2004.

oggbashan said:

Locally we have a nudist beach about a mile away. The nearest footpath is about 200 yards away and has no view of the beach. Getting to that nudist beach? Covered legs and sturdy footwear are recommended, but once there you can shed all your clothing.

Until the local byelaw was abolished - in 2004! - the main bathing beaches had the following rules:

1. No mixed bathing between 7 am and 10 pm.
2. Women should use the Eastern Beach.
3. Men should use the Western Beach.
4. Children up to their 10th birthday should use the women's beach. After their 10th birthday they should use the sex-appropriate beach.
5. All bathers must change in a beach hut or tent out of view of the public.
6. Men and Women must wear the regulation so-called 'University' swimming costume that covers chest, back, arms and legs for three inches.
7. No person wearing a swimming costume is allowed beyond the beach front road. (As originally drafted in 1870 they weren't allowed beyond the promenade - and the toilets were the other side of the road! In theory bathers had to change before going to the toilets.)

Beach huts can be hired from the Council. University swimming costumes with the Council's logo prominently displayed front and back can be hired from the council. They rarely fitted, were made of wool and became very heavy and sagged when wet.

The people in this picture are breaking the law. They have no sleeves and they are together on the same beach.

The locals had been ignoring the law since about 1905 but as I said above it was still a law until 2004.

Click to expand...

A lot of crazy laws remain on the books even though no one enforces them anymore.

12 states in the U.S. still criminalize "sodomy", despite the fact that the Supreme Court ruled such laws are unconstitutional over 10 years ago. The Louisiana legislature actually voted to keep the law on the books a few years ago, and people have been arrested for violating the law since the Supreme Court's decision, although the district attorney refused to prosecute.

In Michigan, a woman must get her husband's permission to get her hair cut.

In Carmel, California, women can't wear heels over a certain height without a permit.

Obviously, the last two aren't going to be enforced, but they remain on the books.

SimonDoom said:

In Carmel, California, women can't wear heels over a certain height without a permit.

Click to expand...

That's one that should be enforced - I see silly girls fall off their heels all the time.

Honey, if you can't walk in your heels, don't wear 'em - tottering along flapping your hands for balance is NOT a good look.

In a previous post (January 10, 2018, comment # 187) I wrote that in the near future “I could easily see that women might then start to, for their own comfort and enjoyment, wear absolutely nothing at the beach.” In the same post I wrote “At the same time I can imagine men, particularly young men, still wearing long, baggy bathing suits that come down to their knees and which do not even hint that these men have a penis.” I expect that many people would think that is a strange thing for me to write. Well, here are two videos, each less than two minutes long, illustrating why I feel that way:

“Evolution of the Bikini” from the 1890s to the present, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYKgRdBJ-vw

“Evolution of men’s swimwear in the last 100 years” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trKKk-7xgXg

The first video illustrates something that I have maintained that women are willing to wear less and less at a “normal” beach and that this is heading toward women being willing to go nude to a “normal” beach. Being a man the second video is a little strange to me. It shows that for a time – from the 1915s to the 1970s – men had been willing to wear less at the beach and also that men had not been uncomfortable in letting the outline of their penises to show. But that changed in the 1980s when men’s bathing suits became baggier, thus hiding the outline of their penises and also became bigger. I am not sure why this occurred. I am more comfortable wearing less at the beach rather than more (I am most comfortable with no bathing suit) and I see nothing wrong with allowing the outline of my penis to show. Wondering about this I thought of two possibilities, one that men have become more modest about their bodies while women have become less so and two that men have, for some strange reason, become uncomfortable with the fact that they have a penis. I don’t know if these reasons are accurate and I would like people’s input on that subject.

Moonlight and Roses,

MoonlightandRoses said:

Wondering about this I thought of two possibilities, one that men have become more modest about their bodies while women have become less so and two that men have, for some strange reason, become uncomfortable with the fact that they have a penis. I don’t know if these reasons are accurate and I would like people’s input on that subject.

Click to expand...

I would suspect that increased access to porn has made men more self-conscious of their own attributes. Back in the 70s men who read Playboy or Penthouse didn't necessarily have easy access to hardcore porn. Even if they did, it would be easy to dismiss the few Ron Jeremys and John Holmes as outliers. For the most part, men could probably only compare themselves flacid to men they saw in the locker room and conclude they were pretty much average. So wearing a speedo that revealed you to be pretty much average was ok.

As hardcore porn became more accessible, and is now universally accessible to men and women, I would guess that men are less willing to show themselves off as just "average". A man's idea of what women find impressive/desirable today is probably much different than it was 40 years ago. Rather than show off, men may find modesty to be a better strategy to keep women guessing.

I don't KNOW any of this. I'm just speculating.

As Henry VIII I used to wear a codpiece. As the King, of course I had a bigger codpiece than anyone else.

MoonlightandRoses said:

Wondering about this I thought of two possibilities, one that men have become more modest about their bodies while women have become less so and two that men have, for some strange reason, become uncomfortable with the fact that they have a penis. I don’t know if these reasons are accurate and I would like people’s input on that subject.

Click to expand...

Now that I think about it, I wonder if the same phenomenon isn't at least partially responsible for decreasing modesty in women. Back in the 60s and 70s the the "ideal" standard of the female form was in the hands if just a few publishers and advertisers. Since pornography has become so accessible, there's a cornucopia of niche porn catering to every conceivable female body type. Big breasts, small breasts, skinny, curvy, muscular, pale nipples, dark nipples, etc, etc, etc. Women's thought processes may have shifted from "my body is not a desirable type" to "somebody desires bodies like mine".

Again, just speculation.

MoonlightandRoses said:

Wondering about this I thought of two possibilities, one that men have become more modest about their bodies while women have become less so and two that men have, for some strange reason, become uncomfortable with the fact that they have a penis. I don’t know if these reasons are accurate and I would like people’s input on that subject.

Moonlight and Roses,

Click to expand...

This is a question I've often thought about. Why is it that women's swimwear and sports wear has become skimpier and skimpier, to the point that middle-aged women routinely go running in tiny bun-hugging shorts and jog bras (I'm not complaining -- it's one of the nice things about being a runner) while men's shorts are much longer than they were 30 years ago? It's routine (in this country - not necessarily elsewhere) to deride men's sports fashions from the past -- speedo swimsuits, and the short shorts that NBA players wore until the early 90s.

I don't know the answer. I'm inclined to think it is not because of discomfort about the penis. Despite the different directions clothing coverage has taken, men are more focused than before on other aspects of body exposure and presentation -- things like body hair, muscle tone, etc.

One tentative theory (I have no idea if this is true) is that it's a way our culture has come up with for maintaining gender differences while in other areas, like jobs, income, family roles, the differences between the genders have decreased and been obscured. Women are encouraged to show off their bodies, while men are not, at least to the same degree. Showing skin is a feminine, not masculine, value. What's interesting is how peculiar it seems to be to the US in particular.

It may also be a response to the rise in a more conspicuous gay subculture, which became more open through the late 70s and into the 90s. Gay male culture seems to be much more receptive to men showing off. A more subdued style of dress may be a way that hetero culture can distinguish itself from gay culture. It's a way for men to signal -- I'm not gay!

LoquiSordidaAdMe, that’s an interesting connection you pointed out between pornography and “. . . men being more self-conscious of their own attributes” and they being “. . . less willing to show themselves off as just ‘average’.” It’s something that I haven’t thought of before. Your second comment is also interesting and may be connected with the current “Body Positive” movement, which it seems to me is more related to women’s bodies. As you indicated there may be more than one reason for such changes. It would be interesting that the same occurrence – the spread of pornography would result in men being more self- of their bodies, particularly one part of their bodies and women being less self-conscious of their bodies in general.

Simon thank you for your input, you make some interesting points such as “. . . maintaining gender differences . . .” and “. . . a response to the rise in a more conspicuous gay subculture . . .” However, it still seems to me that “. . . for some strange reason, [men have] become uncomfortable with the fact that they have a penis.”

Moonlight and Roses,

Earlier I wrote that it was possible “. . . that men have, for some strange reason, become uncomfortable with the fact that they have a penis. This maybe too strong of a statement and a more likely possibility is that men have for some strange reason, starting in the 1980s, become uncomfortable with the showing of the outline (the covered shape) of their penis. In addition it may be that, for some strange reason, since the 1980s women and men have become uncomfortable with seeing the outline (the covered shape) of a penis. People, both female and male, at least in America, are generally not used to seeing the covered shape of the penis, other than their own or that of a person they are in a sexual relationship with and being unused to seeing that may result in their being uncomfortable. However, there is one group of people who are used to seeing the covered shape of the penis and those people are ballet dancers.

Now, male ballet dancers do not always wear tights, but many times they do. Ballet dancers generally start dancing young and so have early and fairly constant experiences with seeing the covered shape of the penis. My expectation is that ballet dancers, both female and male and both young and old are comfortable with viewing the outline of the penis. It may just be a matter of what people are used to. I am not a dancer, but I do enjoy watching ballet. At first I was somewhat uncomfortable with viewing the male dancers in tights, but as I have seen more and more ballets I have become to enjoy the sight of male dancers in tights more and more. Here is a video (approximately 7 minutes long) of dancers of the Mariinsky Ballet performing the “Waltz of the Flowers” from Peter Tchaikovsky’s great “Nutcracker” ballet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzQwEl6-drM. I feel that the dancers, both female and male are beautiful. The following link is to a picture of male dancers just wearing dance belts. Dance belts are a type of “jockstrap” worn by dancers under their tights. It can also be considered a “male thong.” https://i.pinimg.com/originals/08/77/db/0877dbb32e7c7b5d196118a4992f5c74.jpg.

Moonlight and Roses,

MoonlightandRoses said:

Earlier I wrote that it was possible “. . . that men have, for some strange reason, become uncomfortable with the fact that they have a penis. This maybe too strong of a statement and a more likely possibility is that men have for some strange reason, starting in the 1980s, become uncomfortable with the showing of the outline (the covered shape) of their penis. In addition it may be that, for some strange reason, since the 1980s women and men have become uncomfortable with seeing the outline (the covered shape) of a penis. People, both female and male, at least in America, are generally not used to seeing the covered shape of the penis, other than their own or that of a person they are in a sexual relationship with and being unused to seeing that may result in their being uncomfortable. However, there is one group of people who are used to seeing the covered shape of the penis and those people are ballet dancers.

Now, male ballet dancers do not always wear tights, but many times they do. Ballet dancers generally start dancing young and so have early and fairly constant experiences with seeing the covered shape of the penis. My expectation is that ballet dancers, both female and male and both young and old are comfortable with viewing the outline of the penis. It may just be a matter of what people are used to. I am not a dancer, but I do enjoy watching ballet. At first I was somewhat uncomfortable with viewing the male dancers in tights, but as I have seen more and more ballets I have become to enjoy the sight of male dancers in tights more and more. Here is a video (approximately 7 minutes long) of dancers of the Mariinsky Ballet performing the “Waltz of the Flowers” from Peter Tchaikovsky’s great “Nutcracker” ballet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzQwEl6-drM. I feel that the dancers, both female and male are beautiful. The following link is to a picture of male dancers just wearing dance belts. Dance belts are a type of “jockstrap” worn by dancers under their tights. It can also be considered a “male thong.” https://i.pinimg.com/originals/08/77/db/0877dbb32e7c7b5d196118a4992f5c74.jpg.

Moonlight and Roses,

Click to expand...

M&R:

I have a question about your hypothesis. The hypothesis that men "have become" uncomfortable showing the outline of their penis assumes that there was a time when they WERE comfortable with it, or more so. I'm not sure that's true. Was there ever a time when men, in general were? Not that I can tell. Speedo swimsuits were never the most popular type of swimsuit in the US. Although running shorts were skimpier in the 70s than they are now, the big difference isn't that longer shorts show less penis, it's that they show less leg.

For most of the last century men's fashions have been relatively modest. That wasn't quite as true in the late 60s and 70s, perhaps, but that period was the exception, not the norm.

SimonDoom said:

M&R:

I have a question about your hypothesis. The hypothesis that men "have become" uncomfortable showing the outline of their penis assumes that there was a time when they WERE comfortable with it, or more so. I'm not sure that's true. Was there ever a time when men, in general were? Not that I can tell. Speedo swimsuits were never the most popular type of swimsuit in the US. Although running shorts were skimpier in the 70s than they are now, the big difference isn't that longer shorts show less penis, it's that they show less leg.

For most of the last century men's fashions have been relatively modest. That wasn't quite as true in the late 60s and 70s, perhaps, but that period was the exception, not the norm.

Click to expand...

In the UK, except on regulated beaches in town centres, men wore a minimum throughout the 20th Century, the so-called slip (think women's skimpy tie-side bikini bottoms) or if unobserved, nothing.

In my post above I mentioned codpieces. They were a male fashion in the 14th and 15th Centuries to exaggerate the size of the male attribute.

What might be true in the US isn't true in all other countries. Australian swimming costumes were always tighter and skimpier than American ones. Southern European ones were the same. As for Brazil? It isn't just the women who need Brazilian hair trims.

1908:


Bondi Beach, Sydney, Australia 1930s:



Australian Olympic swimmers 1984

oggbashan said:

In the UK, except on regulated beaches in town centres, men wore a minimum throughout the 20th Century, the so-called slip (think women's skimpy tie-side bikini bottoms) or if unobserved, nothing.

In my post above I mentioned codpieces. They were a male fashion in the 14th and 15th Centuries to exaggerate the size of the male attribute.

What might be true in the US isn't true in all other countries. Australian swimming costumes were always tighter and skimpier than American ones. Southern European ones were the same. As for Brazil? It isn't just the women who need Brazilian hair trims.

1908:

Bondi Beach, Sydney, Australia 1930s:

Australian Olympic swimmers 1984

Click to expand...

The differences between countries is part of what makes me question whether we can make a generalization about men being more uncomfortable with showing their penises than before. Is swimwear for me in Australia and the UK more conservative than it was in the 1970s? As an American, I don't know.