In which the Wenches digress from ladies in the bath to Lord Byron in canals of Venice, along with a few naked Frenchmen, English kings, and Greek kouroi for good measure....
SS: Loretta, you're the Byron expert here, and I know Lord B. liked to swim. Have you any idea of what he was wearing while he explored the, ah, beaches around Greece?
LC: My instinct is to answer that Byron would of course swim naked, no matter where he was. Swimming, he couldn't hide his deformed foot, so what would be the point of hiding anything else? He really was more Georgian in his thinking than what we think of as Regency, and even for his time, he was pretty wild. He was also very direct in his speech, noting, after the outraged reaction to Don Juan, "...the outcry has frightened me.-I had such projects for the Don--but the Cant is so much stronger than C--t [meaning the other monosyllable]--now a days..." So I simply cannot imagine him swimming in anything but the altogether.
JO: We really do miscalculate the early 19th century in this respect, I think. In many ways it was still very Georgian, very bawdy and free-spirited, but changing rapidly, leading to conflicts. Byron is probably a prime example.
LC: I will see if I can find out exactly what Byron did or didn't wear--he swam Venice's Great Canal, too, BTW, in a race with somebody--but swimming attire is one of those taken-for-granted aspects of life men seldom bothered to mention in their letters & journals. Today, OTOH, we women at least might mention a style of swimsuit we prefer, and which men, if any, should wear Speedos--but today it's taken for granted that one wears swimwear, except on a nude beach.
SS: My guess would be that he was especially proud of his swimming ability because, unlike running,his deformity wasn't a factor in the water. Of course, he found plenty of other places where it wasn't an issue, either. *g*
My favorite King Charles was a famous (or notorious?) swimmer, often rising at five to go swimming in the Thames while his attendants shivered on the riverbank. No mention of what he was wearing, though; would a king go skinny-dipping in the middle of London?
EL: King Charles ll would go skinny dipping anywhere he wanted to.
There's a reason he's just about my fav monarch.
LC: As to King Charles II--I am with Edith in thinking if anyone could be buck naked in the Thames, it would be the king--and he's my favorite, too.
SS: I think it's pretty safe to say that Charles certainly did. Whenever his appearance is described by contemporaries, his great height (he was over six feet tall, towering over most of his 17th century subjects) and the proportionate size of the rest of him were great cause for wonder, and national pride as well. When Lord Rochester wrote of the king "Nor are his high desires above his strength/His sceptre and his [you can fill in the word, oh, worldly Wench readers] are of a length", no one questioned the earl's statement.
And yes, Edith, he's my favorite king, too. *g*
JO: As I see it they had a completely different attitude to male nudity, which was part of the reason for keeping some areas/activities for men only. These romantic heroines who absolutely insist on invading such places probably got some surprises. Again, somewhere, I have a print of boys swimming in the Thames, all starkers, and I'm sure I've come across references to men swimming naked in rivers and such. There were no approved swimming clothes and why get something wet?
I have this French picture of swimmers, and I can't figure out what they're wearing as it's hardly standard underwear, but swim trunks? I do wonder if they were painted on later. Any votes?
I also have references to "open" bathing in Brighton (without a bathing hut), for both men and women, on different and widely separated beaches. It's not clear whether they bathed naked or in very light clothing (which when wet would be as good as) but it was considered indecent and outlawed in 1806. The following implies to me that he was naked.
One man did it anyway. From the Morning Herald, August 28th 1806. "The greatest novelty, however, that this part of the coast exhibited this morning was in a gentleman undressing himself on the beach for the purpose of a ducking, in front of the town, attended by his lady, who sans diffidence, supplied him with napkins, and even assisted him in wiping the humid effects of his exercise from his brawny limbs, as he returned from the water to dress." (Quoted in BRIGHTON IN THE OLDEN TIMES by John George Bishop, , 1892.) He was fined five pounds, quite a hefty sum then, which seems to have discouraged the practice, but not obliterated it. Also, on the men's beach, even using machines, it was often possible to see the bathers. (They didn't usually swim, merely take a "dipping." Which is why the gender segregated beaches were off limits, and also why telescopes were popular with the ladies as well as the gentleme -- especially before the bylaw!
LC I found a 1789 print of King George III sea bathing (the scene is Weymouth) in what seems to be the altogether (Note bathing machines in background. Note his shaved head.
LC: And here are women sea bathing at Brighton.
SK: There's the Rembrandt painting of Hendrijcke Stoffels, his common-law wife, going for a dip in a 
pool -- her clothes are slung on a rock behind her, and she's wading into the water with her shift hiked up. No skinny-dipping going on there. And naked in bed, or not -- there's another by the same artist showing a woman in bed -- she's wearing a shift, with shoulder and arm exposed. Rembrandt's a good source because he's often painting what he sees, even with posed models, so real life details are very reliable.
There's always lots of nakedness in art, natch -- and young ladies in the 19th c. would naturally see it, and be free to examine great works of art, despite the amount of anatomical correctness on display. Oooooooh let's go look at the Greek statues.... *g*
SS: Maybe during the Regency, but by high Victorian times, it's a different story. The mid-19th century
marks the appearances of fig leaves and extra drapes added to museum statues. Women artists were forbidden to sketch nudes, and banned from life drawing classes. Art collections were definitely segregated, too, with certain exhibitions not open to the ladies. Even in the much more open 18th century, the true connissieurs of classical art with a naked or erotic turn were all gentlemen and their collections very private, with no ladies allowed to the party. Like these gentlemen in 1781 -- "Charles Towneley and His Friends" by Johann Zoffany, who are most properly dressed to study the naked classical stautes.
JO: Just as a counterpoint, I do have this photo of a very erotic statue from the Lady Lever Gallery. I think it's Victorian, but I'm not sure right off hand and I don't know where it was displayed. Lacking in anatomical detail, though. Who was it -- Ruskin? -- who was shocked to find his wife had pubic hair?
SS: Yeah, Ruskin. Supposedly that was enough of a shock on his wedding night to make him swear off his new wife entirely. One wonders what her reaction must have been to HIM.
SK: Egyptian wall paintings, Greek vases (anatomically correct), and of course lots of erotica in Greek and Roman art, no modesty gettin' in the way there. Though it's questionable whether some of the stronger stuff would be available to Regency heroines, for example. Earlier we talked about medieval bath scenes...in medieval art, couples were sometimes shown in sexual situations, though they're mostly demure images of lovers tucked snug in bed, though with a trace of raunchy now and then.
And there's the well-known February image from Tres Riches Heures -- a man and a woman warm themselves by the fire, revealing themselves as buck-naked under their clothing and not too worried about letting it all hang out, while the lady with them is much more demure, keeping her knees (and crotch) covered. So there's a class difference in attitudes of modesty recorded by the artist.
Nudity was prevalent in the Renaissance, of course -- just lots of respect for and curiosity about the body. In every era there are erotic and pornographic images produced (the Italians being real champs at this, and the French and even the English no slouches either), so it's almost impossible to make a blanket statement about they did, or they didn't, show nudity and nekkidness in art in this, that, era.
Mary Jo asked about pre-Raphaelites and so on -- the classical images and excuses prevail where nudity is concerned, and otherwise they're covering up where they can.
While we're talking nakedness, a word about the Scots (since I write Scottish most of the time) -- there's always the tired old joke, and natural curiosity, concerning what Scotsmen wear, or wore, under their kilts. Some of the time nothing at all, yes it's true. Some of the time, black or dark underwear (modern guys). Early on, since shirts were long and multi-purpose garments, shirttails were often wrapped fore and aft (diaper style--not very sexy but nonetheless the case) -- and tucked up to be held in place by the belted plaid.
As Susan Miranda pointed out in her Shirt Blog, there's a reason shirts were changed and laundered often. 
There's a clan battle well-known in Scottish history, Blar na Leine, traditionally known as Field of the Shirts-- the Highlanders on both sides stripped away their plaids and fought in their shirts, or completely naked on a hot July day in 1544. This shows the freedom that Scotsmen felt, even in the 16th c., to strip down and go at it like ancient Celtic warriors (who were known for fighting stark naked.
And Scottish women, who were often described as very modest but affectionate in greeting in every century, including the 19th, would very often be seen with bare feet -- even well-born ladies on occasion (such as the Duchess of Queensberry, but she mostly did whatever she wanted). ;)
Jo: One of the travelers to England in the early 19th century noted that children were nearly always barefoot. So many lovely details, some of which I deliberately ignore when writing because they would at least distact and maybe dismay the reader, who I want to be lost in my story.
SS: Most children in America were barefoot, too, esp. in summer, and well into the 20th century. Shoes were expensive, and as every parent can testify, those little feet sure do grow fast!
JO: It's true we can include more historical detail in a historical novel, but I'm really talking about the jarring detail. It might be true, but the reader is disrupted enough to be jerked out of the story. Of course, if we've created great trust, they'll absorb and read on, fascinated. We can hope.
LC: Re naked bathing:
Well, I've seen the ladies in the bathtubs, in their shifts, with the tubs draped with linens. But there's more to bathing.
Early in Vic Gattrell's CITY OF LAUGHTER, there's a Gillray print of 1782, showing Lady Worsley bathing. This is not a bathtub but one of those step-down baths--like a swimming pool--usually found in outbuildings. She's holding a cloth in front of her nether regions, but she's otherwise naked--and her husband has hoisted another man onto his shoulders so the other guy can peek through a high window at Lady Worsley. The print is titled "Sir Richard Worse-than-Sly, Exposing his Wifes Bottom---O Fye!" This print was published during the Worsley divorce case.
JO: One of the quotes I found relates to that voyeur/bathing scandal. "It was proven, for example, that at the Bath in Maidstone, Worsley had raised Bissett upon his shoulders so that Bissett could view his naked wife bathing." (This is from TRIALS OF LOVE, the guidebook to a Valentine's Day exhibit at the Harvard Law Library. This has led to a database, but at a quick glance I don't see how to access it. Can anyone here figure it out? I'm pressed for time right now. Studies In Scarlet database) I can't find any more yet about a baths along the lines of the ones in Bath, at Maidstone. It's clear the event took place at a public baths, but some people did have those "Roman Baths" in their houses. They were quite the thing. I used that in Dragon's Bride.
LC: According to CITY OF LAUGHTER's Introduction (it deals with 18th century through Regency, mainly), "People do appear to have experienced their bodies differently then. Both sexes dressed their bodies differently from us, and they thought about and had sex differently also (less nudity and orality and more standing up than today, it seems)." The authors sees a change in attitude--increased taboos, prudery--in and after the 1820s, which I, too, feel was the case. Regarding positions and how much clothing, here's a link to some Rowlandson erotica (BE WARNED: These are explicit).
There's another naked lady in CITY OF LAUGHTER. This print is from 1803, artist anonymous. It's four panels. "A Backside and Front View of a Modern Fine Lady...or the Swimming Venus of Ramsgate." Again, it's not a lady in a bathtub. But this is interesting, because I was under the impression that women wore bathing dresses in the sea.
Then we have NYMPHS BATHING, 1810, another anonymous artist--and a cruel one. Ten naked women, all with less than nymph-like figures, again at the sea (or perhaps a lake).
SS: Oh, this is such a FANTASTIC book, Loretta! (City of Laughter: Sex & Satire in Eighteenth-Century London by Vic Gatrell) Anyone who's interested in this time period should really get thee posthaste to a copy of their own. The scores of illustrations and images are often shown for the first time, and in beautiful, lavish color. And where else will you find examples of the bawdy jokes printed in late 18th century ladies's magazines? Highly readable, and highly reccommended.
JO: There's more in Trials of Love that relevant here.
From the trial of Georgina Ann Fawkener for adultery with the Rt Hon. John, Lord Townsend c 1791 "Though he had not witnessed any act of adultery, Pezzy (a servant) deposed that he believed the two to have 'slept naked and alone in the one and the same bed together…'"
Viscountess Elmore for adultery with the Earl of Ancram, c 1793
These lovers went off together to Calais, so I don't suppose the details were in much doubt, but their cook there deposed that "the whole of the said time slept in one and the same bed together naked and alone."
There's a formula to this "naked and alone" that suggests that sleeping together wasn't complete proof, especially if others were there, too. That makes sense, given that travelers often did that if beds were scarce. (Something else not exploited in romances as best I know.) So, sharing a bed wouldn't clinch it if they had clothing on or others were present. They might consider underwear "naked", but I don't think so.
LC: Given the OED definitions, I'm guessing that some of the couples were nude and some were not. We really can't be positive what they meant by naked--or even nude, considering that so many equated Grecian costume with nudity. Still, even sleeping together wearing only an undergarment would be incriminating. At this point, my feeling is--as with so much else--one cannot make a pronouncement, beyond "Some did and some didn't sometimes and sometimes not." And so we needn't clothe our heroines for a bath, and it's OK for H/H to get naked together.
SS: One more illustration from 1822 -- "Making Decent" by George Cruikshank -- from CITY OF LAUGHTER to demonstrate the coming prudishness of the Victorian age. A tiny crusading Mr. Wilberforce tries to hide the genitals of the giant nude statue of Achilles in Hyde Park with his hat. The caption reads: "A hint to the Society for the Suppression of Vice...This print commemorative of Anglo French brass and true British chastity, is inscribed with veneration to that worthy man Mr. Willbyforce who with saintlike regard for the morals of his country has undertaken to make the above figure decent from 10 in the mg. till dusk."
Yes, the cartoon's in jest, but it sure looks like the bawdy ol' times of the Regency and earlier are coming to an end....
SK: A very good example would be the Elgin marbles, which I think were in place in the British Museum in 1816, certainly known in engravings before that date. The heroic nude males of the pediments and metopes would be highly instructive sights for Regency ladies, and it would be sooooo very proper to appreciate them...and worthy of not only viewing, but sketching, too, enabling the ladies to study them freely in 
detail. Kouroi figures in museum collections would also be excellent examples of male nudity, and likely to raise female curiosity. One of the hallmarks of the Kouroi is that they are young men, where a good number of the Elgin dudes are more mature men.
The Elgin Marbles were a very big deal at the time they were put in place, with crowds lining up to see these things, stolen out of Greece with nary a flicker of conscience. *g* Nor were they the only examples of nude sculpture. It would be nearly impossible for ladies to avoid seeing male nudity in art, as Jo points out, with grand house collections of fine art. Library collections would have them too, since engravings in books were a major way to view great art. Greek, Roman, Renaissance, Baroque, there were nude boys and men all along the way, as we've all pointed out in our blogs.
Engravings of the Sistine, of the Florence David, of Bernini and Donatello, etc., would be very instructive, but wow, there's nothing like that 3D sculpture experience. There had to be a good proportion of young ladies in the Brit Mus crowds, perhaps told to look away by their guardians and escorts--and of course many young ladies might have peeked. Sketching art was popular and approved, too, wasn't it?
The Romans could sometimes be prudish, adding fig leaves and strategic drapery to copies of Greek originals, and there was plenty of Roman art about in Europe and Britain by the 19th century. But in genuine ancient Greek art, the Greeks went for the whole enchilada without qualm. With more Greek art finding its way into Britain--ahh, very nice education! (btw, one way to ID a Roman copy of a Greek original -- look for the tree trunk growing out of the leg; when copying, Roman engineer-brains didn't always trust the physics of the pieces, although the Greek sculptures, especially peak Hellenistic pieces, might have been standing without props, beautifully balanced, for centuries). Anyway, all very illuminating for proper young heroines!
JO: That's the sort of "exposure" I meant for our Regency ladies. So very educational! Come to think of it, even in my younger days such works of arts were much appreciated.*G*
PR: And so comes an end to the Wenches' First Naked Anniversary! I hope all of you have enjoyed the illuminating repartee in our exclusive salon. We have certainly enjoyed the company and hope you will continue to return to add to the general merriment. Have a wonderful weekend, one and all!
I suspect that Byron swam in the nude. In fact, I would be astonished if he swam any other.
Basically as lovely as Colin Firth in P&P is...he would have been considered odd.
Prior to the 1840s, men swam in the nude and women in mostly long shifts. During the 1840s it became possible to when renintg a bathing machine to also rent shorts with a drawstring, a towel and a bathing machine for a all in one fee. The shorts were worn by about half the men, the rest still opting for nudity.
One piece swim suits do not appear until the 1870s.
Judith Flanders Consuming Passions Leisure and Pleasure in Victorian Britain (2006) is quite clear on the subject.(p240 -243)
The bathing machine was developed in 1750 in Margate. When the machine was far enough out into the water, a canopy was lowered and the swimmer entered the water entirely hidden from view.
Ben Wilson in Decency and Disorder also goes on alength about the right to swim hnaked and the court cases surrounding it.
FWIW
Michelle Styles
Posted by: Michelle Styles | Friday, May 25, 2007 at 04:55 AM
Actually, Roman statues, whether based on Greek originals or not, were never provided with concealing vegetation. The leaves were all added later. But as many important Classical statues have been famous, and have been widely copied and reproduced, since the Renaissance, their post-Roman foliage has often been assumed to have 'always been there'.
The modern tendency to treat an antiquity with very great respect, and not to alter it in any way, was not shared at all by our ancestors, who felt free to improve the object in any way that occurred to them.
Restoration of damage was the norm rather than the exception. The areas most commonly broken and damaged on ancient stone sculpture are the small protuberant bits, chiefly noses, fingers and penises. If an ancient statue had lost its nose and some its fingers, they were usually restored; if its penis had got battered, it would usually be replaced by a modest leaf. If it had lost its whole head, there might well be a suitable head available, sans body, that could be substituted... (Of course, some Roman sculpture was actually made in separate parts and assembled, but I am straying off the subject now).
Incidentally - a silly bit of trivia - the leaves carved to conceal the genitals are actually nearly always *vine*-leaves. We always think of them automatically as fig-leaves because of the Genesis story.
:-)
Posted by: AgTigress | Friday, May 25, 2007 at 05:51 AM
By the way, although there are, indeed, many Roman statues that are based on Greek ones (generally Hellenistic rather than Classical), there is also a vast amount of original Roman sculpture surviving! The idea that Roman culture was wholly derivative is simply not true.
;-)
Posted by: AgTigress | Friday, May 25, 2007 at 06:05 AM
Thanks very much for the very instructive week! I had no idea... The all-Wench 'conversational' format is great fun as well- a bit like afternoon tea without any caloric content.
[I do recall reading that nuns of a certain order "bathed in shifts" but I thought that might mean 'serially'. (-; Now I know better!]
Happy Anniversary!
Posted by: MJ | Friday, May 25, 2007 at 06:06 AM
Thank you Word Wenches for inviting us into your salon. It has been very educational, indeed. :-)
Happy Anniversary!
Posted by: Nina P | Friday, May 25, 2007 at 06:51 AM
Ah, so those fig...er, vine...leaves were not for modesty's sake but to cover up the guy's penis flaws? LOL. That I never knew.
Posted by: Pam P | Friday, May 25, 2007 at 07:30 AM
I'm wondering why kids have to wear shoes. Modern marketing? Class lines? (kids having shoes = status symbol?) If class lines, where do they come into play since it wasn't relevant for earlier times? I grew up only wearing shoes to school (southerner) but Spouse was raised rigidly with socks AND shoes anytime he stepped foot out the house. We actually have low key conflict over this. "where are her socks?" answered with "inside, in her shoes."
Now I'll spend the day googling children's shoes, cultural norms. Thanks, dudes.
Posted by: Liz | Friday, May 25, 2007 at 08:10 AM
Having seen Byron's house in Venice--from a vaporetto and up close--I should think all he needed to do was jump from his balcony (or a window) he wished to swim!
Posted by: margaret | Friday, May 25, 2007 at 09:57 AM
Oh you're so right, AgTigress,I'd forgotten about leaf coverings added for statues with busted winkles! :) I'd never imply that Roman art is derivative, of course! Their portraiture skills were unsurpassed, even now. They did learn a lot by copying the Greeks down to the millimeter, but all part of their precise process.
THanks for reminding me. It's been a long time since I was in the Greek and Roman art seminars.
The real charm of our week-long naked blog -- aside from rampant nakedness, of course! -- is that it came from Wench emails, for the most part off the cuff, from Wenchly opinion and brain trust.
So now you know what's sometimes on our minds, right....
So glad you all are enjoying this!
~Susan Sarah
Posted by: Susan Sarah | Friday, May 25, 2007 at 10:30 AM
Naked Running
Yes. Naked running. Possibly more of a prank than a sport, but none-the-less an apparently popular pastime in the late 18th century. There are reports of lone runners as well as races (some of them through the streets and parks of London). It appears to have been an early morning activity, and to have been looked upon as more of an amusing oddity than a scandalous occurrence. My favorite report is from The Sporting Magazine, 1792: “two waiters from the Cannon Coffee House raced stark naked to the amusement of a great number of spectators.” This event took place at 7AM in St. James’s Park!
Posted by: Kalen Hughes | Friday, May 25, 2007 at 10:48 AM
Thank you for all the interesting information. Great posts to celebrate your anniversary.
Posted by: Maureen | Friday, May 25, 2007 at 11:20 AM
Pat Rice, still wearing her Cloak of Mandelli--
I am always utterly astonished at how much information is in the Collective Wench Head, but even more, I'm delighted by the things I've learned from our readers. And my obsessive research book list continues to grow...
As to shoes, I'm a native New Yorker who grew up in KY, which means I hate shoes and have tender feet. Bad combo there.
And cool--1792 streaking! There's a reason they say there's nothing new under the sun. "G"
Posted by: patrice mandelli | Friday, May 25, 2007 at 11:34 AM
wow, loads of info to digest and very interesting.
I did not know about the shifts that have been talked about.
Posted by: RobynL | Friday, May 25, 2007 at 12:11 PM
'Busted winkles': don't you love these specialised esoteric terms, used only by the most eminent art-historians?
:-)
Posted by: AgTigress | Friday, May 25, 2007 at 12:34 PM
Pam said: 'Ah, so those fig...er, vine...leaves were not for modesty's sake but to cover up the guy's penis flaws?'
No, they *were* for modesty. But they were not applied in the Roman period, but later. If the area was already damaged, the restoration would simply take the form of adding a leaf, but if the ancient, original genitalia were still in perfect condition, they were sometimes actually lopped off so that the foliage could be substituted.
:-)
Posted by: AgTigress | Friday, May 25, 2007 at 01:54 PM
There's stuff in the same book I got the naked running info from about naked (or near naked) women racing for money (or a petticoat, etc.) at a boxing match. It's listed on the bill as one of the 'events'.
Posted by: Kalen Hughes | Friday, May 25, 2007 at 01:56 PM
Egads! Any one of you gals could do my talk at the Beau Monde (which is about Sex in the Regency). How about I just introduce the lot of you? *grin*
Posted by: Leanne Shawler | Friday, May 25, 2007 at 05:15 PM
Wenches: Thank you once again for a fabulous anniversary week. I love the conversation format; hope you'll reprise it from time to time.
I wish the producers of A&E's P&P had taken more artistic license, and stayed true to history, by giving us more of Colin Firth to view.
Kalen: Naked Running??
Please don't let Seattle know. We already have controversy aplenty with co-ed naked bike riding and naked outdoor swimming.
Posted by: Keira Soleore | Friday, May 25, 2007 at 07:02 PM
Yet more great stuff from all quarters. :)
On kids and shoes, I feel children who are taking first steps should never wear shoes. They learn to walk much better in bare feet, and I believe that's been proved scientifically.I suspect that later, all kinds of subtle muscle development are affected by wearing shoes all the time.
Michelle, I don't think the canopy bathing machine can have been adopted everywhere. We do have the picture here of King George, obviously without canopy, and I have a record from Brighton of them developing a roof and walls system at the back of the bathing machine to offer greater privacy.
So I suspect that it was either a regional variation, or that most people didn't enjoy the tented experience and it was only used by those most anxious to be concealed from view.
Clearly more research is needed all around. It always fascinates me how uncertain so many details of the past are, even the recent past, such as the late 18th and early 19th centuries.
Jo :)
Posted by: Jo Beverley | Friday, May 25, 2007 at 07:25 PM
A late aside re: the P&P Colin Firth bathing attire... during an 2001 NPR interview, he describes the strange legging garment they had originally devised for modesty and TV ratings...
Colin:
"Then we heard that nobody wore underwear (laughs) in those days! Then I think there was an attempt to create underwear, the kind of "if they had worn underwear, would they have looked like this?" I went to be fitted with those and there was no way on earth... I can tell you now, had I worn those, there would have been no heartthrob.
Q: What did this underwear look like?
Colin: They were kind of knee britches. I think they were cotton or silk. They looked like sailor's pants or something from a pirate. I can't remember very well, but they came down just below the knee."
SO... at least we were spared that!!!
Posted by: MJ | Saturday, May 26, 2007 at 05:14 PM
"I have this French picture of swimmers, and I can't figure out what they're wearing as it's hardly standard underwear, but swim trunks?"
They do look like swim trunks, don't they? In fact, except for their rosy red apple cheeks, they look like any modern man you'd find on the beach nowadays. (Well, except for the guy swimming in a turban) And no body hair! Interesting.
But what I find inexplicable, is the dude facing the viewer. He looks like he is standing, but what is he standing on? He's levitating outside the boat and just above the water. It sure doesn't look like he's jumped off the side of the boat to enter the water feet first!
Posted by: Sherrie Holmes | Sunday, May 27, 2007 at 10:20 AM
I'm going with the males having swam naked. :)
The P&P with Colin Firth was not captioned :( I think I'll rent just to 'see' it without being able to know what they are saying. Maybe I'll remember more I see :)
Posted by: Cathie | Sunday, June 17, 2007 at 01:15 AM