I was in the Yungaburra newsagents today. Had a bit of a browse, which I haven’t done for years. Looked at three magazines, as they displayed sexy young women on their covers which drew the inquisitive male observer to see what luscious, lithe and lewd photos lay within.

I wasn’t disappointed!!

Full frontal nudity in all of them!

Woohoo!

But then I noticed on the cover of one that it is listed as ‘Unrestricted – Not recommended for people under the age of 15’. Same with the other two.

Now, my interest was really aroused!

How could such photos, and hence such magazines as these three: Picture, People and Penthouse, be unrestricted?!?!

Then I noticed that the style of written expression is definitely unrestricted. I mean, anything goes!

So…..at what point did full frontal nudity and total freedom of written sexual expression become unrestricted??

Very different to when I was a horny adolescent in the 70s!

And…. (this is the subject of this thread)… is it a good or bad thing that our sexual expression has loosened up over the years….and continues to do so, not least with the advent of the internet?

While I agree it was not like that in my hunter gatherer days Ludwig, the 1960,s.
It was not a desert either.
You can see as much on park benches Friday nights and some put worse on face book.
Doubt it will ever be different, or that I would want it to.
Yes some go too far, once it would have seen different thoughts but now?
Well wish some would understand sex has always been around they did not invent it.
And that some times the morning after syndrome can last many mornings.

Ludwig, I had no idea you were just a kid. Here I have been, all this time, thinking you were a mature member of society. This of course explains a lot.

On the nudity bit old mate, it is not as if it is a new thing, it is just the magazines & the net that's new.

Our morals, & acceptance of more nudity to day is just a symptom of our recovery from the prudish Victorian era. Something like the planets recovery from the little ice age.

I wonder if the cold was a factor in making the species cover up at that time. After all, during the Roman warm period, clothing was more or less optional. If we can believe Hollywood, not only the Romans, but none less that Cleopatra ran around a study in the near nuddy, most of the time.

If I can believe the academics writings, I know a doubtful prospect, in the days before trains with WCs built in, even the ladies of the land would, when nature called, get down from their coach, hitch up their finery, & pee in the gutter.

In fact I think you could say that for most of human history, clothing was just for warmth. Get into the areas of the Pacific islands less frequented by white man, & you still find grass skirts that enhance the display of, rather than cover up a ladies attractions, & men wearing a little sheath of woven coconut fond, smaller than our wallet. Yes for most of our history we were nude.

So Ludwig old mate, just use these mags etc. to brush up on your anatomy lessons, so badly neglected in your youth.

Nothing's really changed. Just the access to it has. There has always been nudity on display and the access has always been there.

Dear Ludwig,

I used to collect playboy centrefolds for my husband -
for years when we lived in Los Angeles. Later
I added the Penthouse centrefolds to the collection
they were more "earthy."

We planned to make
a montage of them behind the bar in the house
we were planning to build once we returned to
Melbourne. It would have made an entertaining
little niche. However, my husband changed his mind
and ended up throwing them all out.

Instead -
a family friend
painted a portrait of me - "au naturale." Which
now hangs in our entertainment room.

Hey, hey, Lexi,

"au naturale" - that takes me back to uni when we had to sketch nude models in drawing class. Still got them I think rolled up out in the shed....the drawings - not the models : )