Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2015 October 17

= October 17 =

Why do young men put their hands down their trousers in public?
Why do a lot of young men, from adolescents to men in their early thirties, openly put their hands down their trousers in public? And why does the phenomenon appear to be getting more common?

I am young man in the said age group, and I must admit I'd not adverse to putting my hand down there (outside the undergarments) for a scratch, for repositioning, for comfort, for whatever, but only in private. I realise that other people might frown on it, think it's something sexual or might even feel threatened by it, so I don't do it when other people are around.

Recent examples of the phenomenon I have observed include: a man walking down a busy street, a man sitting in a train and my brother sitting on our parents' sofa at a family gathering. The man on the train was even less inhibited than usual, clearly making significant hand movements while it was down there. I was shocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.27.47 (talk) 13:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Googling Al Bundy hand in pants leads you some interesting places, including several people asking questions very similar to yours. 99.235.223.170 (talk) 14:45, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Al Bundy didn't put his hand far enough down to hit anything important. Note that this far in can help if you have elastic from your underpants or pants cutting into your waist, especially if you've gained weight recently. StuRat (talk) 22:31, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * why? because people have no shame. why it's more common? because we've had a massive social rot since after the war. manners, courtesy, ritual etc have come to be reinterpreted as a conspiracy by the middle class to keep the masses down and to keep people from being "authentic" and "true to themselves", instead of what those things are, necessary social glue. also, game theory: you can do pretty much whatever on a train and people will stare into their phones. unless you're some kind of an über-alpha, or in a group, intervening costs nerves (and potentially, health) and you won't get any support from other passengers. society has largely surrendered it's authority to keep people in line. they trust the state to do it. naturally, it doesn't work for stuff that is nasty but not legally actionable, like bad manners. Asmrulz (talk) 16:41, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Ah, for the good old days, when there was no social rot, aside from the occasional lynching. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The past was not just lynchings and hitler. your idea of the past lacks depth. which is what THEY want. Asmrulz (talk) 17:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Who are "they" and from what shameful planet did they come from?--TMCk (talk) 17:16, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Additionally, why don't women typically engage in this behavior? I don't understand why it's purely a male dominated activity. 80.195.27.47 (talk) 17:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * they are those who benefit from the population not having an intrinsic relationship with the public past and living in a kind of eternal present. they are also those who like that the bar for societal wellbeing be set low as it is, namely that we don't openly lynch minorities anymore. (come think of it, lynchings were archaic even for their own time. they're contrary to the state's monopoly on the legitimate use of force) Asmrulz (talk) 18:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Every generation thinks society was better in the old days. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "Every generation thinks society was better in the old days" is a cliché and a sophism automatically repeated to kill discussion each time someone tries to perspective society and to analyse regressions when they happen. No, society was not better in the old days, and every generation knows it perfectly well. Every generation knows perfectly well that in the past, there were successions of better times and worse times, every generation knows perfectly well that today generation has its succession of better times and worse times, every generation knows perfectly well that in the future, the succession of better things and worse things will go on its ups-and-downs eternal rhythm. Akseli9 (talk) 08:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not true of everyone, but it's true of those who raise the cliché about "social rot". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This was not about clichés. It was about eternal ups-and-downs and successive evolutions and regressions in society, and pointing it when there is a down, and warning about it when there is a regression, instead of discarding it at once by treating it as a cliché. Akseli9 (talk) 19:02, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You made it about clichés by bringing up that word. What evidence can you cite that there is "social rot", aside from nostalgic whining about how things were better "before the war"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:22, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry but read again above. It was you who brought up the "social rot" and the "lynching", when people were trying to discuss the OP's social phenomenon. Akseli9 (talk) 21:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry but read again above. It was Asmrulz who brought up the "social rot" propaganda, and it was you that brought up the term "cliché" when "social rot" is the actual cliché. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:31, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "propaganda"? Asmrulz (talk) 14:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Right-wing complaints about how society is supposedly going to the dogs (because white males no longer have a complete monopoly on power). Robert Bork-style propaganda. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:11, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Are you asking why women don't adjust their balls? Asmrulz (talk) 18:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, surely they must experience similar sensations on their 'whatevers' and especially if they are of a'trimmed' persuasion.80.195.27.47 (talk) 18:15, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Can someone please post a picture? μηδείς (talk) 21:41, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Miou-Miou does it all the time in a Bertrand Blier film, sorry I can't remember which. Akseli9 (talk) 08:58, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Note that rappers and Micheal Jackson did that (what a relief when MJ only grabbed his own crotch):. This was outside the pants, though.  StuRat (talk) 22:31, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I was going to mention this, maybe it's an expression of love for women or in MJ's case little boys? Raquel Baranow (talk) 15:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

http://media.thedailytouch.com/2015/06/chavs_handsinpants.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.27.47 (talk) 22:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The scrotum grasping phenomenon is counter to prevailing trends which dictate otherwise. Bus stop (talk) 22:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The fact that you are shocked is purely a matter of culture, which can change over time. Sexual activity in public could very well be part of certain past cultures, and why not, part of our own future culture(s)? Things you may consider acceptable, like eating meat, is unacceptable for a large portion of the population in Gujarat, for example. And some of my friends from this region of India quietly think me a barbaric under-developed human for still eating meat (they use more polite words). In Victorian time, for a woman to show her thighs would have been just as shocking as what you saw on the train. Cultural acceptability of behaviours across geography and time should not surprise you. --Lgriot (talk) 17:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I think we're looking at a combination of utilitarianism and a general opposition to censorship. The utilitarian idea is that if your balls are itching, and are going to keep itching without strategic assistance, alleviating the minutes, potentially hours of discomfort you might suffer outweighs the momentary annoyance of someone who disapproves of seeing a proscribed part be manipulated.  And opposition to censorship, which I suppose is more related to rule utilitarianism, implies there is no legitimate ground for anyone to use legal or other force to avoid seeing something they object to, when they could always look somewhere else.  Public health figures in an opposing sense, potentially, but not so much if there is a pocket in the way and no public lice visible on the fellow's fingers. Wnt (talk) 19:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)