Nudity/Sexuality

    • It depends on where people come from and their general environment, wether they understand nudity for comfort or they believe you can only be naked for shower or sex.
      "Comedy is like sex. If they haven't made a noise in a while, change what you're doing" - Sara Pascoe

    • maseb wrote:

      JHR-133 wrote:

      why do people always associate being naked with sex. Can't two boy play and spend time naked together if they want.
      Yes they can, in my opinion absolutely nothing wrong with doing that tho many people will disagree with me.
      I agree, nudity is just normal, you can play together, swim, whatever. Sometimes nudity is sexual, though... it depends entirely on the attitude of the people doing it.

    • Yes, it is only in recent times that nudity has been discouraged to the point where it's generally only acceptable in sexual situations and therefore considered inherently sexual, and even then, most places around the world still don't see it that way. Just a few generations ago, there was a weird dichotomy: people in the West were generally expected to dress VERY modestly, not even exposing their forearms or ankles in some places. But when swimming, males in particular, especially boys, were usually stark naked even in public and no one batted an eye. Now it's the opposite: we often dress very immodestly, leaving very little to the imagination, and yet public nudity is less widely accepted than it once was (at least when it comes to swimming). But it shouldn't be that way. Nudity is not always sexual, any more than being clothed always means you're not feeling sexual. The two things shouldn't be connected. JHR, may I ask what is the situation that prompted you to ask this question?

    • That point about general modesty and nudity moving in opposite directions is an interesting one.

      The Victorians, with considering legs to be obsene even to the point of covering legs on tables and chairs, seems pretty silly to us now but was, to a degree, in keeping with their general view that sex was a bodily function for creating children, an inconvenient reminder that we have animal bodies.

      But, in times since then, I wonder how much modesty has changed, or rather how much more immodest we have become. Some schools have now starting requiring the girls to wear trousers because of arguments over how long skirts should be and, whatever is specified to the makers of the uniform, girls have long found ways of shortening them, for example by rolling up the waistband. This was going on when my grandmothers were at school but it is only recently that there seems to have been any great fuss about it.

      Then we have sagging. Who wants to see other people's underwear/bum cheeks?

      Then breasts. There seems to widely differing views of how much should be shown. Some cover them completely, as for example when wearing school uniform. Other styles leave a little cleavage on display, yet others leave the whole top half of the breast covered. In so far as anyone has strict rules, it seems to be that the nipple needs to be covered and yet nipples are the one thing that boys also have, they just don't have the mound. Then, in continental Europe, it is not unusual to see women topless on the beaches.

      Then, for boys, the modern trend in swimming shorts seems to be to try to make it look like the guy doesn't have a penis at all, despite everyone knowing this cannot be true. Yet, when not swimming, guys are content to wear clothes that show a general bulge or, in some cases, make the size and outline quite plain. Then, back to swimwear, some not only show the general outline but the coronal rim, i.e. the back of the head. By then it seems wearing something rather than nothing is really just abiding with the letter of a rule or convention - the wearer may as well be nude as nothing is left to the imagination.

      But then, no matter how much or little you can see, there is more to whether a situation is sexually arousing or not than that.

    • Ryanschmo wrote:

      Yes, it is only in recent times that nudity has been discouraged to the point where it's generally only acceptable in sexual situations and therefore considered inherently sexual, and even then, most places around the world still don't see it that way. Just a few generations ago, there was a weird dichotomy: people in the West were generally expected to dress VERY modestly, not even exposing their forearms or ankles in some places. But when swimming, males in particular, especially boys, were usually stark naked even in public and no one batted an eye. Now it's the opposite: we often dress very immodestly, leaving very little to the imagination, and yet public nudity is less widely accepted than it once was (at least when it comes to swimming). But it shouldn't be that way. Nudity is not always sexual, any more than being clothed always means you're not feeling sexual. The two things shouldn't be connected. JHR, may I ask what is the situation that prompted you to ask this question?
      To answer your last question. my friend and I always play in the nude with each other when we're alone or in our rooms. His sister stayed home and saw us together and thought we were fucking in his room.

    • JHR-133 wrote:

      Ryanschmo wrote:

      Yes, it is only in recent times that nudity has been discouraged to the point where it's generally only acceptable in sexual situations and therefore considered inherently sexual, and even then, most places around the world still don't see it that way. Just a few generations ago, there was a weird dichotomy: people in the West were generally expected to dress VERY modestly, not even exposing their forearms or ankles in some places. But when swimming, males in particular, especially boys, were usually stark naked even in public and no one batted an eye. Now it's the opposite: we often dress very immodestly, leaving very little to the imagination, and yet public nudity is less widely accepted than it once was (at least when it comes to swimming). But it shouldn't be that way. Nudity is not always sexual, any more than being clothed always means you're not feeling sexual. The two things shouldn't be connected. JHR, may I ask what is the situation that prompted you to ask this question?
      To answer your last question. my friend and I always play in the nude with each other when we're alone or in our rooms. His sister stayed home and saw us together and thought we were fucking in his room.
      That's really not surprising she had that reaction, it's so uncommon for boys, and possibly girls, to socialize in the nude that people expect it to be sexual.

    • Sean2001 wrote:

      That point about general modesty and nudity moving in opposite directions is an interesting one.

      The Victorians, with considering legs to be obsene even to the point of covering legs on tables and chairs, seems pretty silly to us now but was, to a degree, in keeping with their general view that sex was a bodily function for creating children, an inconvenient reminder that we have animal bodies.

      But, in times since then, I wonder how much modesty has changed, or rather how much more immodest we have become. Some schools have now starting requiring the girls to wear trousers because of arguments over how long skirts should be and, whatever is specified to the makers of the uniform, girls have long found ways of shortening them, for example by rolling up the waistband. This was going on when my grandmothers were at school but it is only recently that there seems to have been any great fuss about it.

      Then we have sagging. Who wants to see other people's underwear/bum cheeks?

      Then breasts. There seems to widely differing views of how much should be shown. Some cover them completely, as for example when wearing school uniform. Other styles leave a little cleavage on display, yet others leave the whole top half of the breast covered. In so far as anyone has strict rules, it seems to be that the nipple needs to be covered and yet nipples are the one thing that boys also have, they just don't have the mound. Then, in continental Europe, it is not unusual to see women topless on the beaches.

      Then, for boys, the modern trend in swimming shorts seems to be to try to make it look like the guy doesn't have a penis at all, despite everyone knowing this cannot be true. Yet, when not swimming, guys are content to wear clothes that show a general bulge or, in some cases, make the size and outline quite plain. Then, back to swimwear, some not only show the general outline but the coronal rim, i.e. the back of the head. By then it seems wearing something rather than nothing is really just abiding with the letter of a rule or convention - the wearer may as well be nude as nothing is left to the imagination.

      But then, no matter how much or little you can see, there is more to whether a situation is sexually arousing or not than that.
      Haha wow, you've put a lot of thought into this :lol:

    • Sean2001 wrote:

      That point about general modesty and nudity moving in opposite directions is an interesting one.

      The Victorians, with considering legs to be obsene even to the point of covering legs on tables and chairs, seems pretty silly to us now but was, to a degree, in keeping with their general view that sex was a bodily function for creating children, an inconvenient reminder that we have animal bodies.

      But, in times since then, I wonder how much modesty has changed, or rather how much more immodest we have become. Some schools have now starting requiring the girls to wear trousers because of arguments over how long skirts should be and, whatever is specified to the makers of the uniform, girls have long found ways of shortening them, for example by rolling up the waistband. This was going on when my grandmothers were at school but it is only recently that there seems to have been any great fuss about it.

      Then we have sagging. Who wants to see other people's underwear/bum cheeks?

      Then breasts. There seems to widely differing views of how much should be shown. Some cover them completely, as for example when wearing school uniform. Other styles leave a little cleavage on display, yet others leave the whole top half of the breast covered. In so far as anyone has strict rules, it seems to be that the nipple needs to be covered and yet nipples are the one thing that boys also have, they just don't have the mound. Then, in continental Europe, it is not unusual to see women topless on the beaches.

      Then, for boys, the modern trend in swimming shorts seems to be to try to make it look like the guy doesn't have a penis at all, despite everyone knowing this cannot be true. Yet, when not swimming, guys are content to wear clothes that show a general bulge or, in some cases, make the size and outline quite plain. Then, back to swimwear, some not only show the general outline but the coronal rim, i.e. the back of the head. By then it seems wearing something rather than nothing is really just abiding with the letter of a rule or convention - the wearer may as well be nude as nothing is left to the imagination.

      But then, no matter how much or little you can see, there is more to whether a situation is sexually arousing or not than that.
      Haha wow, you've put a lot of thought into this :lol:

    • maseb wrote:

      JHR-133 wrote:

      Ryanschmo wrote:

      Yes, it is only in recent times that nudity has been discouraged to the point where it's generally only acceptable in sexual situations and therefore considered inherently sexual, and even then, most places around the world still don't see it that way. Just a few generations ago, there was a weird dichotomy: people in the West were generally expected to dress VERY modestly, not even exposing their forearms or ankles in some places. But when swimming, males in particular, especially boys, were usually stark naked even in public and no one batted an eye. Now it's the opposite: we often dress very immodestly, leaving very little to the imagination, and yet public nudity is less widely accepted than it once was (at least when it comes to swimming). But it shouldn't be that way. Nudity is not always sexual, any more than being clothed always means you're not feeling sexual. The two things shouldn't be connected. JHR, may I ask what is the situation that prompted you to ask this question?
      To answer your last question. my friend and I always play in the nude with each other when we're alone or in our rooms. His sister stayed home and saw us together and thought we were fucking in his room.
      That's really not surprising she had that reaction, it's so uncommon for boys, and possibly girls, to socialize in the nude that people expect it to be sexual


      I agree with Mason, it's quite rare for any two people who are just hanging out at home to take off their clothes and just be naked and not do anything sexual. Of course you two have every right to do it, but can i ask why you're ALWAYS naked hanging out together like you say? It just seems a little odd for it to be a constant thing rather than occasional and situational...

    • Yeah well, my family are NEVER naked around each other, and my friends aren't really into that, either. I've been swimming the old way with a couple friends, one of whom kept his underwear on and the other one (another occasion) didn't even get in the water, so I haven't even seen them naked and they did their best to avoid looking at me. I've definitely evolved. A few years ago I wouldn't have done anything like that. But yeah, I still see absolutely nothing wrong with being naked in your own home, man.

    • JHR-133 wrote:

      Ryanschmo wrote:

      Yes, it is only in recent times that nudity has been discouraged to the point where it's generally only acceptable in sexual situations and therefore considered inherently sexual, and even then, most places around the world still don't see it that way. Just a few generations ago, there was a weird dichotomy: people in the West were generally expected to dress VERY modestly, not even exposing their forearms or ankles in some places. But when swimming, males in particular, especially boys, were usually stark naked even in public and no one batted an eye. Now it's the opposite: we often dress very immodestly, leaving very little to the imagination, and yet public nudity is less widely accepted than it once was (at least when it comes to swimming). But it shouldn't be that way. Nudity is not always sexual, any more than being clothed always means you're not feeling sexual. The two things shouldn't be connected. JHR, may I ask what is the situation that prompted you to ask this question?
      To answer your last question. my friend and I always play in the nude with each other when we're alone or in our rooms. His sister stayed home and saw us together and thought we were fucking in his room.

      I feel like nudity is kind of accepted in some situations like maybe swimming naked or sleeping naked even, but in pretty much everything else most people will instantly expect it to be sexual and maybe not look that closely after that.
      19, Twin.

    • kobnoodle wrote:

      I'm glad I was raised properly where I can never be ashamed of my body or be embarrassed of being naked in front of other people
      Hate to be the grammar nazi or "that dude" that nitpicking crap, and perhaps you meant nothing of it, but maybe be careful when you judge and proclaim who's being raised "properly" and who's being raised "improperly". FWIW I think you and I are on the exact same wavelength. Personally I'm not very modest at all. I can be naked in front of nearly anyone and be as chill as always (I still am uncomfortable in front of my mom and certain other adults). However I am careful about judging others. Perhaps I'm wrong and I should judge others more - like if I find other people's Uber old fashioned modesty wrong I should say so. I guess I'm still sensitive in judging others if that makes sense.

    • JHR-133 wrote:

      why do people always associate being naked with sex. Can't two boy play and spend time naked together if they want ... To answer your last question. my friend and I always play in the nude with each other when we're alone or in our rooms. His sister stayed home and saw us together and thought we were fucking in his room.
      To answer your question: it's probably because in our society it's rare for teens to play together naked and even more rare for someone to walk in on it happening, while on the other hand people are preoccupied with sex in our society. It's all over movies, TV, music, the internet, and in our talks. And while it's probably not common, a lot of people have walked in on people naked and masturbating or having sex. So in her mind she was actually making the most reasonable assumption.

      You said you "always play in the nude with each other". May I ask your age and what you and your friend were playing in your room? What age did you start playing nude together? Just him, or do you play nude with all your friends? Most importantly, why? What's your goal or end game?

    • i mean... its not that often that people get naked for no reason, unless youre a nudist or something. it probably shouldnt be like that, and yeah im kind of intrigued by nudist ideology, but its fair to say that opinion is fairly rare in todays society, so i think you need to keep that in perspective