Possible of the site as a sexual site, the gaze at nakedness as a sexual act and the
implicit eroticism that is encoded in this type of site. The relative adjustment of the
system where the trajectory of sexual or alluring desire is allowed to extend
to either gender (as long as it’s an ostensible, coherent sex) destabilizes the
non-sexuality of the website. Where the gender exclusiveness cannot be under-
stood to safeguard against the existence of desire as homoerotic want, and where the
Possible fall of homosociality with homosexuality is increasingly charged,
understood as alone nonsexual forms of pleasurable activity.
Nevertheless, the uncertainty between the frame of the communal showers and
that of the sexual is normally understood by participants. Special rituals are
in place to cease the homosociality of communal nakedness sliding into homo-
sexuality. As Janene Hancock lately points out, these rituals are practised in
the sorts of ‘proper’ dialog:
to women, the semantics used aren’t always complimentary. They discuss problems like their

sexual conquests, their art at picking-up, taking out and ‘sleeping with’ the girls they meet,
Too as quite frequently-lurid details concerning their sexual exploits. . . .
tion is about making guys feel positive about themselves, solidifying their maleness and
rejecting any understanding that they may belong to the marginalised maleness of homosexuals or
poofters. It is a kind of bond between men, reinforcing their relationship with each other
— verbally more than physically.
Among men, statements of homophobia, dialogues about women and the
ways in which the gaze is performed as a non-sexual looking shield the
communal nakedness of men from signifying nakedness-as-sexual. Additionally,
among women there are particular codes of behaviour that cease the nakedness in
communal showers from slipping into the sexual. I am reliably informed that
women in this kind of site will frequently either have a dialogue that averts drawing
Focus to the common nudity as accessible to the gaze of http://www.thoun.com/categories/ or, if more
Comfy, stay totally silent. These too are particular ritualistic codes
which prevent the nakedness/gaze duality from being understood as having a
sexual element, no matter the ways in which such nakedness/gazing might
be involved in actions of policing the physical.
So what, lately, has been occurring to the site of the communal shower as
a framework in which authorized nakedness is tied up with various legitimate
Based on a 1996 Awesome York Times article, showering after
Physical education class by secondary school men isn’t only on the decline but has now
become a signicant rarity (Johnson, 1996). Although the writer theorizes that
this decline intersects with issues of modesty and anticipations of body image and
tness, he also points to an erotic element:
… some health and physical education specialists state that many students draw [from
post-exercise showering] exactly due to the overload of erotic pictures — so many totally
toned bodies cannot help but leave common mortals feeling a bit insufficient. (Johnson, 1996)
advertising, combined with the collapse of ‘compulsory heterosexuality’ and the
heterosexual matrix raises the fear that communal nakedness among lads will
be gazed upon in erotic or sexualized ways that have formerly been protected
participants in the showers are heterosexual and can thereby simply perform a
sexual gazing at another sex. This ‘cultural issue’ is augmented further as
the stereotype of gay men as non-sporting is increasingly discredited.
trates this recent ethnic issue over shower-space nudity increasingly coupled
with sexual or sensual kinds of gazing. While depictions of nude women in lm
have been common and cannot easily be separated from a want for erotic gazing

by a phallocentric lm business, the depiction of naked men in lm is by no
means recent. As early as the 1925 production of Ben-Hur, male frontal nudity
was shown on-screen and, despite the ban on nudity through the intervention of
the Motion Picture Association of America Production Code between 1934 and
1968 (Russo, 1981: 121–2), a spate of popular lms from the 1970s onwards
depicted male nudity —