1990: 6–7). The two-gender exclusiveness of the shower website betrays the high

potential of the website as a sexual website, the gaze at nakedness as a sexual act and the
implicit eroticism that’s encoded in this type of site. The relative adjustment of the
‘heterosexual matrix’ which sees an increasing legitimation of a gender-sexuality
system where the trajectory of sexual or attractive desire is permitted to extend
to either sex (so long as it is an ostensible, coherent gender) destabilizes the
non-sexuality of the website. Where the sex exclusiveness cannot be under-
stood to guard against the existence of desire as homoerotic want, and where the
potential collapse of homosociality with homosexuality is increasingly charged,
the site becomes unstable, and nakedness and gazing upon it can no longer be
understood as exclusively non-sexual forms of pleasurable activity.
However, the uncertainty between the framework of the communal showers and
that of the sexual is generally understood by participants. Special rites are
in place to stop the homosociality of communal nakedness sliding into homo-
sexuality. As Janene Hancock recently points out, these rites are practised in
the sorts of ‘suitable’ dialogue:
When sportsmen gather in the locker room, before or after a game, and their dialog turns
to women, the semantics used aren’t always complimentary. They discuss issues including their

sexual conquests, their prowess at picking-up, taking out and ‘screwing’ the women they meet,
as well as quite regularly-lurid details concerning their sexual exploits. . . . Locker room conversa-
tion is about making guys feel positive about themselves, solidifying their masculinity and
rejecting any perception that they may belong to the marginalised maleness of homosexuals or
poofters. It is a sort of bond between guys, strengthening their relationship with each other
— verbally more than physically. (Hancock, 2001: 3–4)
Among men, statements of homophobia, dialogs about girls and the
ways in which the gaze is performed as a non-sexual looking protect the

communal nakedness of men from signifying nakedness-as-sexual. Furthermore,
among girls there are special codes of behaviour that quit the nakedness in
communal showers from slipping into the sexual. I ‘m reliably told that
women in such a site will frequently either have a dialogue that avoids drawing
http://partnerpost.net/post/post-beach-grandmother-fucking.php to the common nudity as available to the gaze of others or, if more
comfortable, stay totally silent. These also are specific ritualistic codes
which prevent the nakedness/gaze duality from being understood as having a
sexual part, no matter the manners in which such nakedness/gazing might
be involved in acts of policing the physical.
So what, lately, has been happening to the site of the communal shower as
a framework in which authorized nakedness is tied up with various legitimate
codes of gazing? According to a 1996 Fresh York Times article, showering after
Physical education class by secondary school males isn’t only on the decline but has now
become a signicant rarity (Johnson, 1996). Although the author speculates that
this decline intersects with issues of modesty and expectations of body image and
tness, he also points to an erotic element:
… some health and physical education experts maintain that many students get [from
post-exercise showering] precisely because of the overload of sensual pictures — so many perfectly
toned bodies cannot help but leave normal people feeling a bit inadequate. (Johnson, 1996)
The proliferation of a sexualized male physique reliant on the display of esh in
Advertisements, combined with the collapse of ‘compulsory heterosexuality’ and the
heterosexual matrix raises the fear that communal nakedness among lads will
be gazed upon in lusty or sexualized ways that have previously been shielded
by the gender segregation of communal showers on the presumption that all
participants in the showers are heterosexual and can thus only perform a
sexual gazing at another gender. This ‘ethnic concern’ is augmented further as
the stereotype of gay men as non-sporting is increasingly discredited.
The legal controversy that surrounded the lming of Apt Pupil (1998) illus-
trates this recent ethnic concern over shower-space nudity increasingly coupled
with sexual or erotic sorts of gazing. While depictions of nude women in lm
have been common and cannot easily be separated from a desire for lusty gazing

by a phallocentric lm sector, 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 prohibition 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 — Born to Win (1971), The Blue Lagoon (1980), Ace Ventura