I am mentally ill over dick size. I usually measure dicks in penis volume, which takes both length and girth into consideration. That gives me greater reassurance that I am bigger than the vast majority of men. LOL

I'm sick -- I admit it. It is hilarious, but it's true. I think more dudes are hung up (not pun intended) on penis size than you'd ever imagine (just don't admit it).

I don't hook up with dudes, but if I did, it would have to be in a MFM experience, which would rarely happen, unless you're in the swinger or porn world. I wanted to make porn -- never happened. I am a bit wary to have a MFM threesome in the swinger world. Hard to trust others. Just watch porn online. It satisfies my cravings.
I think it's awesome that you're this up front admitting you're "mentally ill over dick size." It's not really an illness; just an attitude that's so deeply carved into your psyche that you can't control it... nor do you need to.
Sorry you didn't get to make porn, man.
And yeah, most guys are hung up on size.
 
I think it's awesome that you're this up front admitting you're "mentally ill over dick size." It's not really an illness; just an attitude that's so deeply carved into your psyche that you can't control it... nor do you need to.
Sorry you didn't get to make porn, man.
And yeah, most guys are hung up on size.
Are you, in fact, in State College PA? Do you interact with Penn State students?
 
  • Like
Reactions: BIGBULL29
I think it's awesome that you're this up front admitting you're "mentally ill over dick size." It's not really an illness; just an attitude that's so deeply carved into your psyche that you can't control it... nor do you need to.
Sorry you didn't get to make porn, man.
And yeah, most guys are hung up on size.
I have a big dick fetish, and I love it! Well, I'm still mentally ill about size competitions, etc.

I'm just honest, buddy. I don't lie. I am pansexual. I don't lie about my sexuality anymore. I'm not 100% straight or even bisexual. I like what I like at a given moment. Whether that's a two curvy lesbians, or a hot male stripper's ass, etc, eatin' good pussy... I like it.

NFL player Lane Johnson said that dudes are talking about their big dicks all the time in the locker room. LOL. It's just a normal male phenomenon.
 
This sort of communal bathing would be absolutely "verboten" in America now or at any other time!
America has gotten more reserved and scared about communal nudity over the years. At the same time, a lot of guys today seem uncomfortable being naked around other men without it being seen as something sexual. Back in the day, things like showering together after a game or using open locker rooms were viewed as entirely non-sexual, purely functional spaces where guys got naked to get clean. Like someone once told me, a damp and smelly locker room full of sweaty and hairy dudes was probably the least sexy place for most straight guys. Now, it feels like there’s this extra layer of self-consciousness that wasn’t really there before.
 
Well, I'm 72...and the US was never as OVERTLY religious in my lifetime as it is now.
I was born in the 90s and grew up in the 00s. I went to public school in LA and we had to get our parents to sign a note in order to refrain from saying the Pledge of Allegiance for religious purposes because it states "under god" otherwise we were required to say it.

That was the 00s. Life was much more religious just back in the 00s, either you're trolling or you're being incredible ignorant because that statement is simple not true. Not to mention "in god we trust" is printed on all our money and God is sprinkled all throughout our government "so help me god" when our officials are sworn in with a bible. Your statement is the equivalent of people who say there was less racism before Obama came into office which is nonsensical.

People were scared to elect JFK who was a freakin CATHOLIC in the 1960s, I wasnt alive but thats well documented. White Christian Idealism was literally the bread and butter of America and the Anglo Saxton world. Men were the head of the family, women had no rights, (white) people used the bible to justify so much oppression, so the heck are you going on about that the US was never as overtly religious back in the day? How many marriages happened because a guy knocked up a girl so the child wouldn't be a bastard?

Being less religious as the years gone by is what got more people rights: single and married women, gays, etc.

In regards to views on homosexuality? wasnt it literally illegal back in the day? Also as more people learned about what gay was, they used the "sin" aspect to shame it, then the whole aids thing. Not to mention people were more closeted back then, a lot of men stayed in the closet. Also a lot of SA was going on too and people caught on it.

Also a lot of people dont want to be nude today because of all the camera and recording devices.

I've been on this earth since the 90s and Ive seen a cultural shift in religion since then and more people than ever identify as atheist or agnostic. That would be unheard of back in the 90s, let alone in the 50s. Religion was so normalized and systemic that someone like u didnt notice but to say it wasn't more overt back in the day, I mean the evidence that contradicts that is so extensive
 
I was born in the 90s and grew up in the 00s. I went to public school in LA and we had to get our parents to sign a note in order to refrain from saying the Pledge of Allegiance for religious purposes because it states "under god" otherwise we were required to say it.

That was the 00s. Life was much more religious just back in the 00s, either you're trolling or you're being incredible ignorant because that statement is simple not true. Not to mention "in god we trust" is printed on all our money and God is sprinkled all throughout our government "so help me god" when our officials are sworn in with a bible. Your statement is the equivalent of people who say there was less racism before Obama came into office which is nonsensical.

...

I've been on this earth since the 90s and Ive seen a cultural shift in religion since then and more people than ever identify as atheist or agnostic. That would be unheard of back in the 90s, let alone in the 50s. Religion was so normalized and systemic that someone like u didnt notice but to say it wasn't more overt back in the day, I mean the evidence that contradicts that is so extensive
As a non-American, the amount of religiousness that US politicians display constantly is kind of creepy. The pledge of allegiance thing is weird and cult-y. I'm nearly 30 and have never been asked to declare any sort of loyalty to my country and can't even remember half the national anthem (in fairness, it is quite possibly the least inspiring national anthem on Earth). Religion is a private matter, and has been longer than I've been alive. Nobody in my family has been religious for 3-4 generations, and it's never been an issue. Nobody's even that surprised about it. Bringing up your religion in public is just weird and awkward. I didn't set foot in a church/mosque/synagogue/temple until I was in my mid 20s and that was for touristy reasons. I wonder if most Americans are just so saturated in the religiousness and political propaganda that they don't even notice it.
 
I was born in the 90s and grew up in the 00s. I went to public school in LA and we had to get our parents to sign a note in order to refrain from saying the Pledge of Allegiance for religious purposes because it states "under god" otherwise we were required to say it.

That was the 00s. Life was much more religious just back in the 00s, either you're trolling or you're being incredible ignorant because that statement is simple not true. Not to mention "in god we trust" is printed on all our money and God is sprinkled all throughout our government "so help me god" when our officials are sworn in with a bible. Your statement is the equivalent of people who say there was less racism before Obama came into office which is nonsensical.

People were scared to elect JFK who was a freakin CATHOLIC in the 1960s, I wasnt alive but thats well documented. White Christian Idealism was literally the bread and butter of America and the Anglo Saxton world. Men were the head of the family, women had no rights, (white) people used the bible to justify so much oppression, so the heck are you going on about that the US was never as overtly religious back in the day? How many marriages happened because a guy knocked up a girl so the child wouldn't be a bastard?

Being less religious as the years gone by is what got more people rights: single and married women, gays, etc.

In regards to views on homosexuality? wasnt it literally illegal back in the day? Also as more people learned about what gay was, they used the "sin" aspect to shame it, then the whole aids thing. Not to mention people were more closeted back then, a lot of men stayed in the closet. Also a lot of SA was going on too and people caught on it.

Also a lot of people dont want to be nude today because of all the camera and recording devices.

I've been on this earth since the 90s and Ive seen a cultural shift in religion since then and more people than ever identify as atheist or agnostic. That would be unheard of back in the 90s, let alone in the 50s. Religion was so normalized and systemic that someone like u didnt notice but to say it wasn't more overt back in the day, I mean the evidence that contradicts that is so extensive
While the rise of cameras and recording devices has made people more cautious about undressing in public spaces, the move toward being more prudish about same-sex nudity started way earlier and ties into larger cultural shifts. Increased personal privacy, like having private bathrooms at home, has made people less accustomed to shared spaces, and consequently, less used to being seen naked by others. The growing visibility of LGBTQ+ issues has been great for awareness and acceptance, but it also introduced a lot of overthinking for some men, fueling "gay panic" and making them more self-conscious in group settings. This has extended beyond nudity, affecting how men bond and express affection. Things that used to be seen as genuine and normal, like casual touch, a hug or emotional closeness, are now often labeled as “gay,” which makes many guys hesitant to act open and naturally around each other.

Add to that the over-sexualization of casual nudity in media, insecurities driven by media (and porn) about body image and penis size, and even parental concerns about safety and pedophilia, and it’s no wonder public nudity feels way more complicated now than it used to be.
 
As a non-American, the amount of religiousness that US politicians display constantly is kind of creepy. The pledge of allegiance thing is weird and cult-y. I'm nearly 30 and have never been asked to declare any sort of loyalty to my country and can't even remember half the national anthem (in fairness, it is quite possibly the least inspiring national anthem on Earth). Religion is a private matter, and has been longer than I've been alive. Nobody in my family has been religious for 3-4 generations, and it's never been an issue. Nobody's even that surprised about it. Bringing up your religion in public is just weird and awkward. I didn't set foot in a church/mosque/synagogue/temple until I was in my mid 20s and that was for touristy reasons. I wonder if most Americans are just so saturated in the religiousness and political propaganda that they don't even notice it.
Exactly! I've traveled extensively in your country---and in Europe---and it never ceases to amaze me when I return home how much the overt proselytizing of "religion" has taken hold here for the past 20-30 years. It wasn't always this way...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 12loner
This sort of communal bathing would be absolutely "verboten" in America now or at any other time!
No...that's the point. It wasn't "verboten" in America many years ago. In fact, in all-male settings it was quite "normal".
 
No...that's the point. It wasn't "verboten" in America many years ago. In fact, in all-male settings it was quite "normal".

No...that's the point. It wasn't "verboten" in America many years ago. In fact, in all-male settings it was quite "normal".
I disagree with you on this. While the idea of men showering together in America was considered more normal in the past, the idea of men bathing in a tub together has never been considered normal in this country. Of course, the Japanese have always done it, and it may been common in parts of Scandinavia; but it has never been popular in America.
 
Well, I will disagree as well...and it probably has a lot to do with our ages. While I personally never bathed with anyone, there were numerous stories that I heard growing up of guys bathing together during the Depression (and before) to conserve water and save time. Most large families back in those days had only one bathroom in the home---with only one tub, and no shower. As it stood, it was not uncommon for two member of the same sex in the family (or as many could fit), to bathe at the same time together. It saved water, and time. To allow four, six or eight kids---plus parents---the time to bathe alone was just not workable (nor cost effective for the hot water). It also led to a lot of the boys "bathing" at the local swimming hole (at least in summer), with their friends. And that was certainly naked as well.

Again...all quite "normal"...if perhaps directed more by need than anything else...
 
I was born in the 90s and grew up in the 00s. I went to public school in LA and we had to get our parents to sign a note in order to refrain from saying the Pledge of Allegiance for religious purposes because it states "under god" otherwise we were required to say it.

That was the 00s. Life was much more religious just back in the 00s, either you're trolling or you're being incredible ignorant because that statement is simple not true. Not to mention "in god we trust" is printed on all our money and God is sprinkled all throughout our government "so help me god" when our officials are sworn in with a bible. Your statement is the equivalent of people who say there was less racism before Obama came into office which is nonsensical.

People were scared to elect JFK who was a freakin CATHOLIC in the 1960s, I wasnt alive but thats well documented. White Christian Idealism was literally the bread and butter of America and the Anglo Saxton world. Men were the head of the family, women had no rights, (white) people used the bible to justify so much oppression, so the heck are you going on about that the US was never as overtly religious back in the day? How many marriages happened because a guy knocked up a girl so the child wouldn't be a bastard?

Being less religious as the years gone by is what got more people rights: single and married women, gays, etc.

In regards to views on homosexuality? wasnt it literally illegal back in the day? Also as more people learned about what gay was, they used the "sin" aspect to shame it, then the whole aids thing. Not to mention people were more closeted back then, a lot of men stayed in the closet. Also a lot of SA was going on too and people caught on it.

Also a lot of people dont want to be nude today because of all the camera and recording devices.

I've been on this earth since the 90s and Ive seen a cultural shift in religion since then and more people than ever identify as atheist or agnostic. That would be unheard of back in the 90s, let alone in the 50s. Religion was so normalized and systemic that someone like u didnt notice but to say it wasn't more overt back in the day, I mean the evidence that contradicts that is so extensive
It appears that my first reply to you post was deleted. I don't know what I said that caused may have warranted that...but I will try again with some more-moderate phrasing:

I think that you entirely missed my point…

What I’ve been saying is NOT that the US is any more (or less) religious today than it has been in the past, but instead that the religion practiced today (at whatever level) is a lot more OVERT in its actions and activities than it was previously. There is a big difference…

Additionally, you're drawing causations regarding society that are not necessarily valid.

I too grew up in Los Angeles—but in the 50s/60s/70s—so I can attest to much of what you are saying as far as the restrictions on various strata of society at that time. And, while Los Angeles may have always been a bit “different” from other places, I did spend time growing up in other parts of the country as well…and saw how they too lived within the same general American culture. In my comments, I have never denied that these restrictions were there, although in some places they were stronger than others. But instead, I’ve said that these things were not often “enforced”---or even much commented on in a media sense---by the mainline religions of the time. And certainly, many/most parts of society itself ignored much of it.

And, yes…many (if not most) of those legal restrictions were the results of hundreds, if not thousands, of years of Judeo/Christian thought. However, during much of the 20th century it was not the churches that were continuing to drive the restrictions. With the exception of the Catholic Church banging on about abortion, very few churches got politically involved in much of anything. Instead, their attitude was really pretty much laissez-faire outside of their own purview.

Homosexuality, while it may have been frowned up (and illegal, certainly) was not railed at from the pulpit. There were many gay and lesbian churchgoers (incognito, to be sure). And women, while they may have been confined to second-tier status by our government (again at the direction of Judeo-Christian moral beliefs), nevertheless held their own in the family structure. In fact, many women actually worked, and they often were the one’s managing the household budget.

In other words, the times weren’t quite as hideous as you are describing. If one was marginalized, one learned to work within that system to their own advantage (and safety). To assume that there were no happy and successful gay men and women (there were, I grew up knowing many), nor any successful and happy housewives (the women of my neighborhood would certainly tell you differently), is to deny the reality of life then. It may not have always been easy…but it could certainly be a fulfilling life.

So, what I am saying is that many marginalized people lived full lives. The government did not arbitrarily come sweeping in and arresting gay men and women, unless they themselves put themselves in compromising positions. In fact, I knew several gay men who STILL held government jobs. And if a woman got pregnant with an unwanted child, or as you quote, “because a guy knocked up a girl”, they actually DID very frequently get an abortion—even if abortion was illegal and they had to do it dangerously, and under-the-radar. I’m not making a value judgement here…but that is a FACT. And, yes, almost all of these people—gay or straight—were members of mainline religions, and many were regular churchgoers.

So, while the churches may have been very much against both situations in their dogma—and would certainly not condone either situation—they never vocally vilified it, either. Instead, most religions just turned a blind eye to it. They certainly didn’t excommunicate anyone for their “sins”.

Hypocrisy?!? Certainly…no doubt about it.

And, that’s why the laws changed–-NOT because people became “less religious”, but because the Courts realized the hypocrisy of trying to implement and maintain laws for a society that, while very much still spiritual, realized that some things are still just going to happen…as they have since the beginning of time…and that the decision of sexuality and abortion was a very personal one.

Of course, all of this was still happening with our money saying “in God we trust”; and with our government officials swearing “in God we trust”; and with all of us saying our Pledge of Allegiance. Those things have no relation to each other—it’s apples and oranges.

You do have a valid point, as I said in an earlier post, in that there are more people today that identify as atheist or agnostic than did back in the 50s/60s/70s. Additionally, as I mentioned previously, there has been a huge decline in mainline church attendance. I would say many of these people are still “spiritual”...but have subsequently decided that mainline religions didn’t meet their needs. HOWEVER, at the same time there has also been a huge rise in the Evangelical types of religions since then (look it up, it's been steadily growing for years) that almost negates the atheist/agnostic/mainline religion trend. And it is these new religious forms that have become far more virulent---and are today trying to drag the nation back to the very situations that you are listing in your note. And now, they are using the media and the government to do it.

In the 1950s/1960s1970s, the churches did not try to ban books that they felt were against “Christian” morality as they are doing now. Yes, the Catholic Church did have a list of books and films that were considered “mortal sins” for their parishioners...but many (if not most) Catholics had them on their shelves anyway. And, they were certainly in the public library no matter what the Church advised. Contrast that with today…

Nor, in the 1950s/1960s/1970s, did the churches rail against homosexuality the way they do today. Instead, it was one of those (many) things that they turned a blind eye toward. Perhaps they felt this was something more under the purview of the government to enforce…but whatever, the bulk of the mainline churches said very little publicly about homosexuality. The main driver against homosexuality wasn’t by the organized religions, but by the McCarthy faction of the US government in the 1950s using it to cleanse homosexuals from government positions due to their ability to be “compromised” since homosexuality was illegal. Their homophobia ran far deeper than just church teachings…and had a political opportunist component as well.

Nor, until recently, could a customer be denied service by a shopkeeper or service provider merely because the provider’s religious beliefs were against whatever lifestyle the customer may have. While I’m sure that it happened surreptitiously in the past, now it is entirely legal using “religion” as the cudgel. And, homosexuality and Trans identity seems to be their main very-public target. It has already happened to me twice…and it had never happened before, no matter where I lived.

Today, much of Religion has placed a target on several groups---particularly gay men since AIDS---where it wasn't in the past.

And, one final note…I WAS there during the Kennedy campaign for the Presidency. The reason Kennedy was deemed unfit by many for that office was specifically BECAUSE he was Catholic…and it was felt that he would be guided more by loyalty to his religion and to the Pope in Rome than by the Constitution of this country. Odd, now, that the same things are being said about several members of the Supreme Court who do seem to be putting their religion above the Constitution. And we’re “less religious” today?! I don’t think so…

So, no…I’m not “trolling” you, or being “incredible (sic) ignorant”. I’ve just had very different life experiences than you have…and over a longer period of time…and in different parts of the country. I think that what you might need to do is perhaps spend some time in other parts of this nation where religion now DOES have more of a hold on people than what you probably experience in your Los Angeles bubble…at least before you start throwing stones.
 
Last edited:
It appears that my first reply to you post was deleted. I don't know what I said that caused may have warranted that...but I will try again with some more-moderate phrasing:

I think that you entirely missed my point…

What I’ve been saying is NOT that the US is any more (or less) religious today than it has been in the past, but instead that the religion practiced today (at whatever level) is a lot more OVERT in its actions and activities than it was previously. There is a big difference…

Additionally, you're drawing causations regarding society that are not necessarily valid.

I too grew up in Los Angeles—but in the 50s/60s/70s—so I can attest to much of what you are saying as far as the restrictions on various strata of society at that time. And, while Los Angeles may have always been a bit “different” from other places, I did spend time growing up in other parts of the country as well…and saw how they too lived within the same general American culture. In my comments, I have never denied that these restrictions were there, although in some places they were stronger than others. But instead, I’ve said that these things were not often “enforced”---or even much commented on in a media sense---by the mainline religions of the time. And certainly, many/most parts of society itself ignored much of it.

And, yes…many (if not most) of those legal restrictions were the results of hundreds, if not thousands, of years of Judeo/Christian thought. However, during much of the 20th century it was not the churches that were continuing to drive the restrictions. With the exception of the Catholic Church banging on about abortion, very few churches got politically involved in much of anything. Instead, their attitude was really pretty much laissez-faire outside of their own purview.

Homosexuality, while it may have been frowned up (and illegal, certainly) was not railed at from the pulpit. There were many gay and lesbian churchgoers (incognito, to be sure). And women, while they may have been confined to second-tier status by our government (again at the direction of Judeo-Christian moral beliefs), nevertheless held their own in the family structure. In fact, many women actually worked, and they often were the one’s managing the household budget.

In other words, the times weren’t quite as hideous as you are describing. If one was marginalized, one learned to work within that system to their own advantage (and safety). To assume that there were no happy and successful gay men and women (there were, I grew up knowing many), nor any successful and happy housewives (the women of my neighborhood would certainly tell you differently), is to deny the reality of life then. It may not have always been easy…but it could certainly be a fulfilling life.

So, what I am saying is that many marginalized people lived full lives. The government did not arbitrarily come sweeping in and arresting gay men and women, unless they themselves put themselves in compromising positions. In fact, I knew several gay men who STILL held government jobs. And if a woman got pregnant with an unwanted child, or as you quote, “because a guy knocked up a girl”, they actually DID very frequently get an abortion—even if abortion was illegal and they had to do it dangerously, and under-the-radar. I’m not making a value judgement here…but that is a FACT. And, yes, almost all of these people—gay or straight—were members of mainline religions, and many were regular churchgoers.

So, while the churches may have been very much against both situations in their dogma—and would certainly not condone either situation—they never vocally vilified it, either. Instead, most religions just turned a blind eye to it. They certainly didn’t excommunicate anyone for their “sins”.

Hypocrisy?!? Certainly…no doubt about it.

And, that’s why the laws changed–-NOT because people became “less religious”, but because the Courts realized the hypocrisy of trying to implement and maintain laws for a society that, while very much still spiritual, realized that some things are still just going to happen…as they have since the beginning of time…and that the decision of sexuality and abortion was a very personal one.

Of course, all of this was still happening with our money saying “in God we trust”; and with our government officials swearing “in God we trust”; and with all of us saying our Pledge of Allegiance. Those things have no relation to each other—it’s apples and oranges.

You do have a valid point, as I said in an earlier post, in that there are more people today that identify as atheist or agnostic than did back in the 50s/60s/70s. Additionally, as I mentioned previously, there has been a huge decline in mainline church attendance. I would say many of these people are still “spiritual”...but have subsequently decided that mainline religions didn’t meet their needs. HOWEVER, at the same time there has also been a huge rise in the Evangelical types of religions since then (look it up, it's been steadily growing for years) that almost negates the atheist/agnostic/mainline religion trend. And it is these new religious forms that have become far more virulent---and are today trying to drag the nation back to the very situations that you are listing in your note. And now, they are using the media and the government to do it.

In the 1950s/1960s1970s, the churches did not try to ban books that they felt were against “Christian” morality as they are doing now. Yes, the Catholic Church did have a list of books and films that were considered “mortal sins” for their parishioners...but many (if not most) Catholics had them on their shelves anyway. And, they were certainly in the public library no matter what the Church advised. Contrast that with today…

Nor, in the 1950s/1960s/1970s, did the churches rail against homosexuality the way they do today. Instead, it was one of those (many) things that they turned a blind eye toward. Perhaps they felt this was something more under the purview of the government to enforce…but whatever, the bulk of the mainline churches said very little publicly about homosexuality. The main driver against homosexuality wasn’t by the organized religions, but by the McCarthy faction of the US government in the 1950s using it to cleanse homosexuals from government positions due to their ability to be “compromised” since homosexuality was illegal. Their homophobia ran far deeper than just church teachings…and had a political opportunist component as well.

Nor, until recently, could a customer be denied service by a shopkeeper or service provider merely because the provider’s religious beliefs were against whatever lifestyle the customer may have. While I’m sure that it happened surreptitiously in the past, now it is entirely legal using “religion” as the cudgel. And, homosexuality and Trans identity seems to be their main very-public target. It has already happened to me twice…and it had never happened before, no matter where I lived.

Today, much of Religion has placed a target on several groups---particularly gay men since AIDS---where it wasn't in the past.

And, one final note…I WAS there during the Kennedy campaign for the Presidency. The reason Kennedy was deemed unfit by many for that office was specifically BECAUSE he was Catholic…and it was felt that he would be guided more by loyalty to his religion and to the Pope in Rome than by the Constitution of this country. Odd, now, that the same things are being said about several members of the Supreme Court who do seem to be putting their religion above the Constitution. And we’re “less religious” today?! I don’t think so…

So, no…I’m not “trolling” you, or being “incredible (sic) ignorant”. I’ve just had very different life experiences than you have…and over a longer period of time…and in different parts of the country. I think that what you might need to do is perhaps spend some time in other parts of this nation where religion now DOES have more of a hold on people than what you probably experience in your Los Angeles bubble…at least before you start throwing stones.
Very well said.
 
I see your point(s)---and they are valid. But, they actually just sort of substantiate mine...

Why, for instance, aren't there any open showers anymore? It certainly costs plenty more to build out single-stall showers for large groups of men...yet that's what has been happening over the past 20 years. And even most schools and "Y"s have given up nude swimming. I'm not sure the kids demanded it. Same with homes. I grew up in a standard middle-class subdivision home that had two bathrooms, neither of which were attached to the master bedroom. As a result, my dad, my brother, and I shared the "boy's bathroom" (the one with the shower only), and my mom and sister shared the "girl's bathroom" (the one with the shower-tub combo). I saw both my dad and my brother naked nearly every day. Now though, my brother's home has five bathrooms---and a separate bedroom/bathroom for each of his sons. Was it really necessary...or just another luxury that homes just "have to have".

To enhance your point, though, both of my nephews have grown up (to my brother's amazement) to be practitioners of the "towel dance". He says that they've NEVER seen each other naked.

As to your point about mothers...again, valid. BUT...why have they gotten this way? My mother...and the rest of the mothers on my block...didn't have any problem with male nudity. Jeez...my dad walked back and forth from the shower to his room naked...and slept naked. My mother's only concern with that was when my sister got old enough to know what a dick was all about. The boys feelings---if we even had any---didn't matter. I remember when I was first transitioning to junior high school from elementary school...and was concerned that now I'd have to get naked with guys I didn't know. My mother understood my concern, but had no sympathy...that was just the way it was done. She certainly wasn't going to complain to the school about the open showers.

And, yes...our coaches occasionally showered with the boys if it was the last class of the day and the boys were running late, and the coaches had places to be. I don't remember anyone ever complaining about it...nor any sort of "disciplinary actions" being taken against the coaches for doing it. It was a non-event.

I will agree with you that cameras in the gym are a problem---I've seen it myself and am uncomfortable with it, and have said so to the one with the camera. And, yes...I am more careful now but I'm certainly not going to do a towel dance---it's a locker room for gawd's sake.

So the the question remains...why this complete turnaround on (particularly) male nudity? I say it is the intense fear of male homosexuality (female doesn't seem to be as big of an issue) that has been instilled in everyone since the 80s/90s by Evangelical-styles of religion that deem it sinful. It has been a MAJOR cultural change.
hey man would love to discuss this more but i can’t message you, mind shooting me a message?
 
  • Like
Reactions: swimmerguydfw