Re:Promiscuous Bathing: Victorian Outrage Over Indecency at ...
by ghostDancer on Monday May 22, 2017 @02:39PM
(#14395915)
In the city where i live , there were carriages that took you (the wealthy) to the water and back but if you were the Queen obviously you had your own personal mobile palace, powered with a steam motor: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historia_de_San_Sebasti%C3%A1n...
Re:Promiscuous Bathing: Victorian Outrage Over Indecency at ...
by chippy on Monday May 22, 2017 @01:02PM
(#14395178)
Interesting that early on people didn't wear bathing costumes and bathed naked. A Bathing Machine seems to be a good idea in that case, where you can enter and leave the water in full nakedness.
It seems that a hundred years later, people were also wearing costumes, and as this was right when the lower classes were flocking to the sea for their vacations, going into the sea straight from the beach, I imagine, and when the machines became stationary and then turned into beach huts (still reasonably common on many UK beaches)
Re:Promiscuous Bathing: Victorian Outrage Over Indecency at ...
by dade_ on Monday May 22, 2017 @01:22PM
(#14395337)
Oh, our silly sensibilities. Go to a nude beach this summer and bare all. Just remember sunscreen!
Only a small percentage of people look anything like the magazines, and even then only with makeup and Photoshop. Fear of nudity, your own and others just isn't healthy.
Re:Promiscuous Bathing: Victorian Outrage Over Indecency at ...
by RcouF1uZ4gsC on Monday May 22, 2017 @11:52AM
(#14394557)
>The bathers of both sexes romp, laugh, and perform all kinds of antics in which the actual nudity of the men is infinitely less offensive to our sense of decency than the modest immodesty of the clinging gossamer vestment in which the females cover, without hiding, their forms.
Wow, what a double standard. A woman wearing wet clothes is considered more scandalous, than a totally naked man?!
Re:Promiscuous Bathing: Victorian Outrage Over Indecency at ...
by ajnin on Monday May 22, 2017 @02:40PM
(#14395927)
Well, first this is late 19th century Victorian England, it's a bit late to be offended about sexism in the society.
But it's not necessarily a double standard, there can be more eroticism in a wet piece of clothing that tries to hide but reveals in fact a lot, than in bare nudity which is the natural state and not that shocking all things considered.
Re:Promiscuous Bathing: Victorian Outrage Over Indecency at ...
by coldtea on Monday May 22, 2017 @12:46PM
(#14395036)
>Wow, what a double standard. A woman wearing wet clothes is considered more scandalous, than a totally naked man?!
Well, males are very "interested" in the female form.
Females in the male form, not so much beyond a certain point (for the same reason males enjoy lesbian porn, but women don't particularly care for gay male porn).
A few exceptions aside, most males just aren't that interesting to look at.
Re:Promiscuous Bathing: Victorian Outrage Over Indecency at ...
by coldtea on Tuesday May 23, 2017 @01:27AM
(#14398994)
Well, not that wrong, though there's this media idea of some women admitting they are watching gay porn etc, which they blow as on the rise or even prevalent. Still, according to PornHub:
Moving on to search terms. Women seem to have a lot of love
for ‘lesbian’ porn. The term dominated women’s top
searches. From ‘lesbian scissoring’ to ‘lesbian seduces
straight’ even to ‘lesbian threesome’ there was a definite
request for anything female on female among our female
viewers. And while the ladies’ preference was ‘Lesbian’ by
a long shot.
They also provide preferred search terms and preferred categories for men and women, and gay related stuff is not in the top 10.
Re:Promiscuous Bathing: Victorian Outrage Over Indecency at ...
by mikestew on Monday May 22, 2017 @06:58PM
(#14397537)
A few exceptions aside, most males just aren't that interesting to look at.
There exist measuring rulers that are less straight than I am, but I have seen plenty of men who I find "interesting" to look at.
When you get down to it, the physical appearance of women isn't all that interesting: a butt that's maybe wider than mine, a couple of bags of fat where their pecs ought to be, and for the most part you can't even see their genitals. Move along, nothing to see here.
Essentially a carriage that sat in the water that you changed clothes in, sometime is to a provider outfit.
You climb in on one side on the beach and out the other into the water.
Amazing that social etiquette was so strong nobody asked "hey why don't we go right into the water?"
It seems that a hundred years later, people were also wearing costumes, and as this was right when the lower classes were flocking to the sea for their vacations, going into the sea straight from the beach, I imagine, and when the machines became stationary and then turned into beach huts (still reasonably common on many UK beaches)
Only a small percentage of people look anything like the magazines, and even then only with makeup and Photoshop. Fear of nudity, your own and others just isn't healthy.
Sure, you spend the first 30 seconds gawking, but you quickly get over it and realize being naked isn't inherently sexual
Wow, what a double standard. A woman wearing wet clothes is considered more scandalous, than a totally naked man?!
But it's not necessarily a double standard, there can be more eroticism in a wet piece of clothing that tries to hide but reveals in fact a lot, than in bare nudity which is the natural state and not that shocking all things considered.
Still a double standard, but unfortunately not limited to the Victorian era.
Well, males are very "interested" in the female form.
Females in the male form, not so much beyond a certain point (for the same reason males enjoy lesbian porn, but women don't particularly care for gay male porn).
A few exceptions aside, most males just aren't that interesting to look at.
You are so very wrong about that. Though it is true that women generally prefer written porn to visual.
There exist measuring rulers that are less straight than I am, but I have seen plenty of men who I find "interesting" to look at.
When you get down to it, the physical appearance of women isn't all that interesting: a butt that's maybe wider than mine, a couple of bags of fat where their pecs ought to be, and for the most part you can't even see their genitals. Move along, nothing to see here.
May I guess that you are heterosexual male who does not have good looking friends?
Gay porn is targeted at dudes, stuff targeted at women involve differently looking men.
Yes, but that would be beside the point, as I'm talking about the average male, not "good looking" ones or Tom Hiddleston in a suit.
The horror! :-)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_XXXVIII_halftime-sh...
Basic income, legalized marijuana, promiscuity, addictive video games. Tools for fools. Don't break anything.