Don’t forget that it took a lot of support, in the form of a corset (or a bodice?) to get that high cleavage look you see in the movies. I bet at some point there was an “unlace your corsets!” movement just like the “burn your bra!” movement in the 20th century.
Corsets are a cool idea and can make a woman look smokin’ hot, but I wouldn’t want to wear one every day.
Oh, you don’t need to blame Victoria herself for everything; there were a lot of factors. AFAIK by the time she became queen, people were very tired of the monarchs’ conspicuous lack of morality, and society was already swinging towards stricter standards of public virtue. A young, innocent queen with an upright husband and a nice family was just what people wanted anyway (if they couldn’t have a nice young virtuous king).
And don’t underestimate Prince Albert’s influence; he was really rather stricter than Victoria was. And then of course he died and she went into a lifetime of obsessive mourning.
Public virtue and modesty was, to Victorians, part and parcel of their new modern, progressive way of life. A lot of them wanted to forget about the ribald, licentious, primitive past and move forward into a better future of technology, education, freedom, and adventure. It wasn’t them who turned the word “Victorian” into an epithet meaning “hide-bound traditionalist.” That would be the Edwardians, rebelling against their elders. Victorians thought of themselves as modern and progressive, living in a new age of wonders.
I expect our grandchildren will have awful things to say about us, too. 
After all, what could be worse to us than to be accused of wanting to live in the 50’s?
Yes indeedy–the Victorians had the rational dress movement.
Arguably, society today is moving towards increased modesty, especially in men’s clothing. Men go shirtless in public much less often today than they did 15 years ago, it seems to me, and certainly shorts that were acceptable 15-30 years ago now seem way too revealing for a man to wear in public. Even the “sagging” look is really pretty modest: kids who sag are drowning in fabric, huge baggy jeans sagging to reveal huge baggy boxers or huge baggy athletic shorts. Sometimes there is another pair of tight boxers or briefs under that. The actual body is as completely hidden as any Victorian lady.
Women’s clothing is still very revealing, but it’s not much more revealing than it was in the 70s. The pendulum swings back and forth there, but over a fairly small range.
Male nudity in general is usually done for comic affect in American film and TV.
There’s no government censors of movies in the US.
That’s a secret.
I’m not sure about the shirtless thing, but you’re right about shorts. The shorts worn 20 years ago would barely pass as boxers today (which also explains why it’s become acceptable to wear shorts in so many places). Men’s swimsuits are more modest too. How often do you see guys under 30 wearing trunks that don’t reach their knees. I will mention that I’m 23 and never in 11 years of PE did we ever do shirts vs. skins. In fact we were required to wear shirts for all activities.
People are often quite surprised to learn how much was allowed at times in the past. During the 1800’s “classical” fashion phase, some upper class women dampened their light and gauzy white dresses (worn with minimal undergarments), to predictable effect.
Didn’t say it was government–it’s done by aprivate agency, the MPAA, but if they didn’t self-rate, congress would have intervened.
A lot of people like low cut dresses. I personally look down on them.
Since I doubt there is a definitive factual answer to this, I’m moving it to IMHO.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
Judd Apatow is on a mission. And he’s barely balancing out the pointless female nudity.
:eek:
A good friend of mine who was something of a female fashion plate during her high school and college days had a rule which she summed up thusly: “You should never show too many of your goodies off at once”.
In other words, if the girls are out for some air, miniskirts are right out. If your pants are tight enough for anyone walking behind you to read the care instructions on your panties, you’d better be wearing a sweater.
I wonder if the belief that women showed a lot of cleavage in the distant past comes from what could be idealized but historically inaccurate RenFair costumes.
What means this “pointless”?
You see plenty of breasts in movies, but you never ever see a pussy. On the other hand, Apatow is laying on the cock real thick and nobody’s censoring it. Why are dicks OK, but pussy not OK?
I have never seen a vagina in a mainstream movie.
A couple off the top of my head are Showgirls and Training Day. You also see bush in Kramer vs. Kramer, for that matter.
SSG Schwartz
There is only one reason. They’re competing for a mate.
But that’s about all you see; public hair, not the actual vagina.