User: porno_historian

The option of privacy should always be there. If showering is mandatory, then there must be seperate stalls in addition to a communal showering area. If it isn't mandatory, then the shy students can shower at home.

But I don't want schools to overdo it, either. Students shouldn't be taught, that the need to hide your body is the norm. Communal showering should always be possible. Even unisex changing rooms/showers/bathrooms are fine, again as long as there are alternatives. There also don't need to be private changing areas, I think, since nobody is ever required to strip out of their underwear.

Having special accomodations for everyone is also a cost issue, so it should be kept to a minimum.

That's how it should be in public shools. Private schools should be able to do what they want, including forced nudity at all times. Of course parents would be ill-advised to send their kids to such a school, unless they have already prepared them for it through an appropriate lifestyle at home.

Exactly. Voyeurs like to watch and sometimes actively spy on others and exhibitionists like being watched and sometimes actively expose themselves to others.

I used to have a slightly shy bladder in my teens. Not really a problem. It just took me a few extra seconds until my body relaxed and I could go, even if it was urgent. I basically know nothing about this issue in general, so I can only speculate. I believe, that in my case it was really more of a mechanical conditioning issue, than a psychological one. In my parent's home, everyone had to pee sitting down. I adhered to that. In my teens I didn't go outside much, unlike before and later, so I had little opportunity to pee standing up. I guess my body started to asscociate sitting with relaxing the bladder. Kind of a muscle memory thing. But I might be wrong. We also moved into a house with 3 bathrooms around the same time, so total privacy was always guaranteed. Not because we wanted to hide, but because it was convenient, or so we thought at least. Maybe that contributed, too, dunno.

I believe there should always be an option of privacy, even in the family home, but it shouldn't be overvalued. In practical terms, I think bathrooms should never be locked. The door can stay open or it can be closed for number two, or when someone wants some piece and quiet. In that case, another person wanting to enter should knock first. But never lock the door! It really sucks when someone else needs pee urgently, fetch something or do whatever, but can't enter. There is no need to be shy about one's body or bodily functions.

And homes with multiple bathrooms? I don't really think we need those. They're just a waste of money and space. Instead, just get used to using the bathroom together. Two guys can pee into the toilet. If it's occupied by a female, pee into the sink, or shower or bathtub instead. Two people can shower at the same time, if the stall is big enough or you have a shower and bathtub with shower fittings.

In general, I believe modesty should be tolerated but not catered to. In the family home you don't even need to tolerate it. I would, but that's just me.

Skirts are considerably older than pants. Pants became a necessity after domesticated horses had been bred to be big enough to be able to carry a person on their back. Skirts are inconvenient for horseback riding, unless one has a special saddle. Pants are more difficult to make than skirts, though. So, in the beginning, only riders wore pants. Everyone else kept wearing skirts or robes. Men and women. It took several thousand years for pants to become the default item of clothing for men and women all across the globe. So skirts are obviously very functional.

Undergarments were invented to absorb sweat, so that outer garments don't have to be washed as often. Modern washing machines make that function kinda obsolete now. Beside that, underpants serve to protect against chafing, when wearing pants (which I've already established aren't necessary) or to protect one's modesty, when wearing skirts ($%!@ modesty).

So yeah, we could discard pants and underwear completely and go back to wearing skirts exclusively. I'm a guy and so I'm not used to wearing skirts. Also, I don't want to draw too much attention. Otherwise I would like to try out ditching pants altogether and be dressed like my ancestors.

The only reason I would keep pants, is because they can be very form fitting and can accentuate the female anatomy in ways, that skirts can't (unless we are talking about hobble skirts, which are pretty but utterly impractical).

I don't like clothing prescriptions in general and especially when there's a double standard. But high heels have their uses and women would do themselves a disservice to disregard them completely. Yes, high heels have become an object of paraphilic desire, but that doesn't mean they serve only to satisfy the male gaze.

They affect posture and height. Combined with certain other items of clothing, they make women look sharp and possibly even imposing. Sure, not everyone needs that in their lives. But if we have the societal expectation, that a man should be able to knot a tie, then we can also say, that a woman should be able to walk in high heels. Well, I guess clip-on ties have almost become the new standard. It seems, that standards are falling across the board!

By the way, a little bit of eye candy doesn't make the world worse, it makes it better. It's just, that nobody wants to be forced to be eye-candy.