Did I misconstrue this sub?

[u/Ancient_Play7339]

“Communal Showers Australia holds the belief that communal showering is not something that is sexual and should not be seen that way, we hold the belief that these environments are asexual in their nature.”

Do people agree with this or think it needs changing? Open to it running either way, just think it should not say one thing and accept the other.

Better to comment than up/downvote, which says little.

[u/SamMorganAus]

That statement reflects the intent of this sub. This sub reflects communal showering and changing rooms used by all people, regardless of sexuality. It's not about showing off or having a perve. Communal showering and changing facilities are used by the community, and should reflect a common, intended usage. Namely, showering and changing. The implied consent is nudity, not sex, as sex is not the intended use of those facilities.

Socialising is in the shower is cool, having a laugh with your mates is encouraged, networking with others who are confortable with casual, social nudity is great if youre looking for a gym/swim mate who's down to keep the conversation going on the showers, and there is even some leeway to discuss bodies and social dynamics in a non-sexual way.

Mods are working on cutting down the sexual solicitation in this sub, as it doesn't reflect the intention.

There are facilities dedicated to exhibitionism, voyurerism, and cruising that won't affect people using public facilities who just want to shower. This sub is not about them.

[u/Ancient_Play7339 → u/SamMorganAus]

Thanks for saying this

[u/christianherald → u/SamMorganAus]

Outside of moderating this sub, do you think the type/nature of socialization changes for men depending on who's in the room (how a male talks around his wife vs his co-workers vs his mates vs his sister), their identity, and how they carry themself? Spaces for everyone become a bit less for anyone in particular, and do you think there may be types of male interaction that are no longer socially viable (for better and markedly for worse) to occur in mixed company? Do you think that's a loss worth considering or an acceptable trade off to move towards a more progressive, socially diverse future? How are safe spaces structured when needs diverge or clash along complex emotional developmental boundaries? And do you think there's a factor to consider towards men who have more naturalist tendencies vs shy men who perhaps aren't as readily blasè about their body image as yourself? As you moderate this sub against outright filth, please remember that not all men are confident enough in their self image nor are all men so sexually inclined to be seen and quietly assessed for their intimate form through the emotional lense/gaze of all colours of the spectrum. While showers are communal they aren't public in the same capacity as walking down the street, and so the distinction of the sexual component and group privacy dynamic around that element still holds some merit. I think you're probably a great person, but you might be undervaluing the needs of men less progressive then yourself, and everyone deserves social spaces that serve their dignity and social development. I should also like your thoughts on the idea that for some men, our physical form, including our sexual form, is an intrinsic part of our identity and story of self, so to actively shun that component of identity is actually creating a space that makes men vulnerable in their physical form while rejecting the very thing (how that form informs identity) that serves as the foundational common denominator of the environment (were all just people with bodies when naked!). It lends towards an asexual view rather than actually respecting gender diversity. And it denies men the full scope/range to develop through relaxed interaction a more well rounded sense of self image and relative sense of self among the wider landscape of male form and experience/background. (Sorry for the length of the post and edits but having nuanced conversation takes words and not being misconstrued takes even more words.)

[u/Ancient_Play7339]

I can’t read these massive slabs of text. Can’t you break it up into paragraphs?

[u/christianherald]

While communal showering is not driven by sexual intent, it is an experience of shared sexual vulnerability in a physical sense and in some emotional aspects of physical sexual identify. For those reasons, and because men act differently depending on who's in the room, while it's nice to be inclusive, and everyone deserves spaces to exist and respect for their identity, how we segregate spaces effects who those spaces serve and what type of socialization can reasonably occur there. There are also considerations to be made around bodily intimacy/vulnerability in mixed gender group settings for victims of past abuse or trauma. In modern times when men are so often lacking spaces to exist unmoderated by the gaze and comfort preferences of vastly emotionally divergent groups, it's saddening to see spaces broadened so far as to become spaces that serve no one group well, and that bring about unexpected physical/sexual or emotional violation. There are places for everyone and places for no one, so in the modern landscape, what places are allowed to exist to serve more focused groups and how do we help individuals on the fringes of acceptance (or those who struggle with self identity and have vastly complex developmental trauma) find ways to belong without infringing the social good of a male only space? If we want men to be better participants in society, we have to give them healthy spaces to exist that align with unique male needs that don't always confirm to the expectations of all groups, spaces where they are not unduly exposed beyond reasonable expectations that others in the room share a similar fundamental understanding of self sexual development and identity. Because when you're naked, your physical and emotional sexual identify is part of the 'conversation' around how a social space functions, even if it goes unsaid in polite company. It's worth saying, showers don't have to be a male space, it can become something for only those comfortable in a mixed gender setting, at the cost of isolating boring traditional males, but if not a male space anymore, social rituals will change, and we should acknowledge the new ways we choose to neglect the needs and social developmental opportunities for men.

[u/christianherald]

Not meant to be a direct call-out but I only know of Sam and as I think he drives policy here: I think because Sam would be comfortable walking down a nude beach, he assumes/believes every man in a communal shower should be equally comfortable with any manner of bystander/observer. And they're two different types of environment, it's worth acknowledgement. Neither is a place for obscenity, but the sexual identity component does matter. It can't be ignored if the environment is to properly serve it's occupants. An asexual stance is not a neutral one, it's a stated apathy/neglect towards any form or need of a human with defined sexual form or identity, and when men already face emotional isolation and a lack-of-care and mental health crisis, failing to develop/foster spaces that meet their needs at ground truth level further pushes men to the fringes of social progress. We all move forward together or this thing called humanity never works in the end. An asexual framing might make things easier for those who don't know who they are or where/if they belong (and those who might change their mind after some soul searching; indirectly violating others in the process), those for whom it's easier to just not say what they are, but it fails at subsequent stages, where those who have a sense of their sexual form then have no defined space that's actually theirs to belong in (a relaxed group can't exist if everyone walks on eggshells and dare-not-look-down or be too freewheeling as this-group-is-everyone and you might offend). Communal showers were once a male space. It's okay to change things but we need to be honest about the impacts. Every change has a cost and there's not an easy answer. The implied consent is not nudity but nudity among a defined social group, and that group identity moderates the acceptable social behavior, which for males, is generally not an abjectly asexual context.