Thongs vs. nudity or "What's the deal with naughty bits?"

I’m a bit puzzled about the American meme regarding nudity, so I was hoping the folks in IMHO could help me out.

You can go to a grocery store and buy magazines which feature a stock in trade of very attractive young women, often attired in nothing more than a thong, sometimes wearing only a smile and some strategically placed bits of shrubbery (examples: FHM, Maxim, American Curves, Blender). You can buy mags featuring musclebound guys wearing teeny speedos and huge glutes.

But if you wanna buy pics of women (or men, I assume) exposing their naughty bits, you must hie yourself hence to a pornographer.

Now, here’s the deal. I can’t speak for women’s reaction to men’s naughty bits, but I gotta tell you … women’s naughty bits aren’t the incredibly arresting visual thing you might suppose they are, based on all the effort that is put into concealing them. It’s not that they aren’t nice looking – they are. But measured against the sheer poetry of a beautifully curved pair of female hips or a wonderfully rounded pair of breasts, or a powerfully expressive pair of eyes, nipples and vaginal lips don’t stand a chance.

(OK, I used to be VERY interested in naughty bits when I was younger, but having seen quite a few in magazines and in person, then novelty has worn off. They’re just another part of a woman’s body to me now, only a total turn on when I see them IRL which means Something Is In The Offing, if you know what I mean.)

Thus the thong-clad beauties on the grocery store shelves are in certain respects just as appealing as any hard-core porn … all the really good parts are on display.

So, let’s do a thought experiment. Suppose we did away completely with the media taboo in our media. Split beaver on the cover of Newsweek, erections on display on Cosmopolitan’s cover, nude weather reporters showing us what phase their moon is in, labia jewelry ads in Lucky … would this be the end of Western Civilization? Or would people get bored with it pretty quickly once the novelty wore off?

I’m thinking “bored.” And if “bored” is the answer, what’s the point of the taboo in the first place?

The point is we need something to be special and taboo. The world wouldn’t come to an end, but it’d be a good deal less spicy.

Doug Stanhope does a bit about if hands were the naughty bit instead of the boobs and vagins. Getting a hand job would be the ultimate sex act! “Dude, she wouldn’t give up the hand until the 4th date!”

Skin is the Devil’s slipcover.

I half-suspect the reason that Maxim and its brethren are so popular is for that exact reason - because the nipples and public region aren’t particularly exciting for many of us. Most men over the age of about 20 have already seen so many pics of naked chicks that we become more discriminating, and seeing some wholesome chick from a family sitcom wearing only some lacy undergarments is far more titillating than seeing some unknown chick completely buck-nekkid. We’re getting our joy not from the nudity itself, but from the nude herself.

Could someone please link to a work-safe picture of a woman in a thong? I can’t say as I’ve ever seen one. Where I come from, a thong is something you wear on your foot. They’re called flip-flops now. I can’t conjure up an image of any other kind of thong. Thanks.

:dubious:

Enjoy.

Oh, it’s underwear. I didn’t know it went by a different name now. The chances of ever seeing my wife in undies like that is zero and none. Wrong dimensions and like that.

What was the ‘dubious’ icon for?

It’s not just underwear, thongs are also worn at a lot of beaches in the US and Europe. And the ‘dubious’ is because thongs have been around for awhile and are widely known. Frex, Monica Lewinsky is supposed to have seduced Clinton in party by pulling her dress down to show him the top strap of her thong underwear. It was in the Whitewater Report, a serious government document.

I disagree. The whole sex thing is built-in hormonal hardwiring. We hardly “need” taboo to make sex exciting. Mostly, what we need is an opportunity to have it, or the prospect of an opportunity to have it, or the thought of a prospect of an opportunity to have it, to get excited. Which is why sex sells.

Well, I haven’t been to a beach in the US or Europe, not being American or European. And I haven’t spent any time checking out the women’s undies or bathing suit sections anywhere. I would hear the term ‘thong’ but had no frame of reference for it.

Well, since you are in Florida, may I suggest a fact finding trip to Miami’s South Beach. Strictly in the interest of fighting ignorance and all. :slight_smile:

and, even, seeing said wholesome chick nekkid… it’s called imagination, as in “leaving something for the…”

There’s even imagination with the completely nekkid chicks - the difference is “imagine she and I were alone somewhere and we…” and “imagine she and I were alone somewhere, and she let me watch her take off the those inadequate garments, and then we…”

fishbicycle - the Viccy’s Secret pics don’t really do the thong justice, because they don’t show the back. You know how, on thong sandles, there’s that bit that goes between your toes to hold it in place? Now, think about how the sample principle would be applied to the rear of a pair of panties.

While seeing the “pink spots” of both men and women in magazines might be taking it a little too far, I do think we Americans are quite prudish when it comes to nudity. A few boobs, some muff fuzz and maybe some male frontal nudity on TV would not be such a bad thing at all. However, I remember seeing 28 Days Later and the audience just started laughing at the male frontal nudity. I am sure they were laughing at it because they were uncomfortable at the sight of a penis and not because the scene was funny.

We are an uptight bunch of fucks here in the USA.

Hey fishbicycle you don’t have to go all the way down state to see thongs, I’ve seen them at a few local college student apartments when visiting my nephew.

So they’re the equivalent of butt floss??? Eeewwwww!

<sigh> :rolleyes:
Must I do all the research for you.

:smiley:

Sad but true. I’m totally an advocate of nudity, because unlike swimwear or shorts, it totally eliminates the male/female dichotomy of who can expose what. When non-naked, females can go as skimpy as they want as long as key bits are covered. Males generally are expected to be much more covered, a trend which has been increasingly prevalent ever since 1990 when some professional basketball players decided that, instead of wearing shorts, they would put each leg in a knee length miniature skirt.

I’ve always found the US’s prudishness about nudity to be ironic when one considers how easily and often one can turn on the TV and see someone’s face get shot off.

I think because the taboo has gone on for long, there is a built-in association between nudity and sex. And as we all know, sex is far worse than violence. :rolleyes:

In my opinion, it wouldn’t be the end of civilization if the situation in the OP were to happen. Surely it would tick off a lot of people; religious zealots would go on email writing crusades and some would argue about the indecency of it, for example, but I think it would eventually become accepted (assuming it continued, or at the least the innovaters didn’t immediately back down and publicly apologize), just as violence has been, or certain words that are now used everyday that fifty years ago were considered too foul to utter.

Yeah, it was kind of odd going to see Elizabeth, which opened with scenes of people being burned at the stake, but when they got around to taking clothes off and having fun, it had to be hidden…

I have to disagree with the premise of the OP at least for me. I’ve seen more than my fair share of porn in my day. I love seeing women’s crotches and I never get tired of it. If there was an assembly line job where nothing came through but women’s crotches, then that would be the job for me. OTOH, I like the actresses in skimpy lingerie too. That serves a slightly different function however. I don’t care that much for exposed titties.