A thing I don't get

[resonant]

About 20% of the sex scenes I read happen with someone's pants and/or underwear around his ankles. And what I want to know is: Why??

I mean, do people find this hot? Is it just me who finds a person with pants around his/her ankles to be desperately, laughably un-sexy, almost as bad as a person wearing black socks and no pants?

Edited to add: Oh, god, shocolate has put her finger on what's so very unsexy about this: Guy with his pants around his ankles = guy sitting on the toilet.

Comments

[yahtzee63.livejournal.com]

Weird -- I virtually never read that. Is that really so common?

I would mostly find that very unsexy too, though there are certain setups where that might be the most credible place for the pants to end up, in which case, fine, just don't emphasize it too strongly.

[resonant8.livejournal.com]

It may be less common -- one of those things where I hate it so much that it seems to me that it's everywhere. (Like coconut, or brown clothes.)

[http://users.livejournal.com/solo____/]

I think it's often used to express a sense of urgency - like, people who would otherwise be quite aware of the ridiculousness of it get so caught up the moment that just getting the fucking clothes out of the way no matter how is the main priority.

[resonant8.livejournal.com]

After reading the discussion, I've come to the conclusion that Maybe it's Just Me, because for me it's almost a squick. (Possibly because of the toilet connection.)

[shetiger.livejournal.com]

That almost always drives me up a wall. (Sometimes it can be hot, when it's a sign of how desperate they are.) But not on un-sexy, but uncomfortable!


(I also have a thing about shoes on the bed. Makes me itchy when they don't take them off first. Ick. Odd, I know.)

[shetiger.livejournal.com]

Erk. But not only un-sexy.

Stupid fingers.

[anenko.livejournal.com]

You're right, it is a laughable image. I don't actually *visualize* while I read, though, so it's not something I've really thought about.

I imagine it springs from a sense of urgency--the characters are so into the act, that they can't be bothered/can't spare the few seconds it would take to strip off their pants and underwear fully. Maybe there's also a mild restraint kink involved, as one (both?) partner's mobility is limited?

[resonant8.livejournal.com]

The restraint thing I love is when their cuffs are still buttoned and so taking the shirt off traps their hands/arms.

[elsie.livejournal.com]

*sniggering at both images*

I think people look ridiculous with their pants/trousers down around the ankles, and it definitely detracts from the sexy factor, but it does happen in real life. You know, in certain situations and locations. If the scene is taking place in the context of an actual PLOT, especially in longfic where the characters have desperate, laughable, ridiculous sex on their way to eternal bliss, then it works. I do like realistically bad or semi-bad sex because it's, well, realistic. As long as they get to the good stuff at some point.

[resonant8.livejournal.com]

I'm fond of realistic-and-awkward in most cases; I don't know why this one thing in particular squicks me so badly.

[marinarusalka.livejournal.com]

I think it's meant to indicate a sense of urgency -- they're so darn hot for each other, they can't be bothered to undress all the way. :-)

There are some scenarios where it works: up-against-the-wall alley sex, that type of thing. But if the participants have actually made it to a bedroom, I generally expect them to take the time to take off the shoes and pants.

And yeah, it does look thoroughly ridiculous when you think about it, but then again, most people having sex outside of Hollywood movies would look totally ridiculous to an uninvolved observer, no matter what they were wearing or not wearing. Was it Robin Williams who once described having an orgasm as "You feel like God! You look like Goofy."?

[resonant8.livejournal.com]

Hee! That's a great quote.

[darkseaglass.livejournal.com]

I often think it's really sexy when it's part of a scene where the characters are really worked up and can't wait, don't want to wait the extra few seconds to get them all the way off. It's the desperateness that gets me.

[resonant8.livejournal.com]

See, that works for me if they undo the pants and leave them on, or if they just push them down a couple of inches. Get down to knee level or below and I start thinking toilet thoughts.

But after reading the comments here, it's becoming obvious to me that that's just a quirk of my mind.

[villainny.livejournal.com]

Clothes partly on I can deal with, but not around ankles.

And I think I'm in love with your icon.

[resonant8.livejournal.com]

Thanks! c_regalis made him for me.

[apetslife.livejournal.com]

No, you're not the only one. I especially find myself sniggering when the characters have to move to the bed/couch/table/wherever, pants still around ankles, because it always puts me in mind of people trying to run a sack-race. All hobbled and hopping and no, not sexy in the LEAST.

[venivincere]

Kinda sexy if they trip and one falls down on top of the other and then they just sort of say "fuck it" because they have to get off now? :-D

[raveninthewind.livejournal.com]

I think it is silly, if I dwell on the image. But it can work, too. Sex is pretty ridiculous looking at times.

[resonant8.livejournal.com]

Yeah, true; usually best not to think about it too much.

[pauraque]

It's not only unsexy, it also inhibits movement rather a lot!

[darthfox.livejournal.com]

this is what i've always thought. shoot, i did put my characters up against the wall -- up against the door, in fact -- and i made them stop and finish undressing when the POV dude noticed, you know, i can't actually move my legs the way i want to.

they quit kissing to take their pants off, too, because shirts are one thing, but in some instances it's important to be able to see what you're doing.

[crysothemis.livejournal.com]

Well, I confess that I'm one of the ones who finds it sexy, when well-written, anyway. Why? First, because of the urgency thing. And second, precisely because it is dorky and funny.

So I think it's sexy because it's not sexy, which doesn't make any sense, except it does. I like sex scenes that don't feel too perfect, too choreographed. And yes, I'd probably enjoy a sex scene with the characters wearing nothing but black socks, for exactly the same reason.

[resonant8.livejournal.com]

I was really surprised -- even after noting how often I saw it, I really expected this to be an issue that most people agreed with me on, and it's really obviously not. So just a personal thing, I guess.

[panisdead.livejournal.com]

Pants around the ankles = not sexy. However, pants just barely pushed down or trapped around the thighs = kinda hot. I think I like this because yes, urgency, and also because it seems like it would be unbelievably irritating--you'd do it to someone if you were pissed off or angry at them and you wanted to get on their nerves. It's kind of mean, and under certain circumstances I do like mean.

Although, I did once read a scene, I think in lierduoma's genderfuck story, where John's pants are around his ankles and he goes to take a step backward and trips and falls. And then there was cuddling on the floor, and that was sexy.

[flambeau.livejournal.com]

Pants around the ankles = not sexy. However, pants just barely pushed down or trapped around the thighs = kinda hot.

*completely agrees*

[shocolate.livejournal.com]

Nope - pants round ankles is for sitting on the loo - not sexy!

[resonant8.livejournal.com]

Omigod -- that's the reason! That's exactly the association I have -- some guy sitting on the toilet with a magazine in his lap, whistling tunelessly! That's what wrecks it for me!

[reedfem.livejournal.com]

I've noticed the pants thing myself. For me, it depends on the story whether I find it annoying or sort of hot. I think I've been mostly annoyed.

Is it just me who finds a person with pants around his/her ankles to be desperately, laughably un-sexy, almost as bad as a person wearing black socks and no pants?

Well, it's better than black socks and *sandals*...

[resonant8.livejournal.com]

Ew. Also kind of dorky: a guy in a shirt and no pants.

[betagoddess.livejournal.com]

I don't find pants around the ankles sexy in the least. As you say, toilet things come to mind, not sexy things. =>}

[resonant8.livejournal.com]

I've been surprised at how many people aren't bothered by it.

[mzcalypso.livejournal.com]

The toilet image... Aieee. Yeah, that would get in the way of a hot scene. Pants pushed just far down enough for access, in a situation where the lovers don't have time for anything else--that can be very effective.

For me, almost anything can work if the writers's done a good job. Except, usually, a striptease. Maybe it's a guy thing? Funnily enough, I was trying to write one to see if I could make it work, but the character wouldn't cooperate.

[resonant8.livejournal.com]

Oh, I have a problem with striptease, too. If he seems at all uncomfortable, then it activates the humiliation squick, and if he doesn't seem uncomfortable, then it seems implausible with any guy that I care much to read about.

[venivincere]

I think it's sexy when it's two young guys who are in that much of a hurry to get each other off that their hastily, half-shoved-down jeans and pants slowly shake down to their ankles with each frantic thrust against each other.

Now, if it's some middle aged balding man with sock suspenders and black polyester pants, I'd have to burn the fic and wash my eyes in bleach.

[venivincere]

Oh, and I forgot to mention that the two sexy young guys are doing it against a wall. In no way are they laying down, unless one of them trips and the other falls on them, and they're too far gone to do anything much more than thrust and thrust and ungh! Oh, God! Yes! Yes! Yes!


Erm.

[cheshyre]

So far, I've had characters do that once in one of my fics

In some respects, it was meant to be unsexy.
Or, more accurately, the character who remained mostly-dressed wanted to keep things as remote and business-like as possible, without lowering himself to his partner's level. It wasn't an equal exchange, they weren't friends or intimates, and the clothes were one way of ensuring that.

Does that make sense?

[resonant8.livejournal.com]

Interesting; I can easily see why someone wouldn't want to get any more naked than necessary.

I've been surprised how many people have disagreed with me about this. I thought it was inherently laughable and unsexy, but now I find it's just a personal quirk.

[skuf.livejournal.com]

Where are these fics?? I personally have a kink for sex with pants shoved down just enough to get the job done, mmm - even pants/ankles would work, I think? There isn't near enough of those scenes, imo, though.

[resonant8.livejournal.com]

hee! your kink, my squick!

[iibnf.livejournal.com]

In Joe's Wedding, David Hewlett gets fucked with his pants down round his ankles (and his socks still on) and that was hot.

[resonant8.livejournal.com]

Hee! But probably not to me.

[emmagrant01.livejournal.com]

I know at least two people whose biggest fanfic kink is partially-clothed sex, so I would put "pants around the ankles" in that category. I've written it myself in situations where the characters were in too much of a hurry to take their clothes completely off. ;-)

[resonant8.livejournal.com]

Yeah, it's becoming obvious to me that this isn't a critique, it's a squick. That surprised me.

[amanuensis1.livejournal.com]

A few people have said it above--it's the realism of it, the unprettiness of it that makes it more attractive for those who are looking for a bit of (dirty, filthy) realism.

Is it odd that I find the idea of a hand going down the waist of someone's knickers to be sexy, but when they try to push aside the crotch of the knickers to go at someone that way, it's a complete turn-off to me? It's all...tangled that way.

[resonant8.livejournal.com]

That's funny -- I like it both ways.

[stakebait.livejournal.com]

I kind of like it. Pants shoved down to the thighs, especially, since that avoids the toilet image. It's the urgency of it -- that they couldn't wait a second more than they had to. Plus there's a certain aesthetic to the contrast, the line where skin meets fabric. And a semi-bondage aspect to the restricted movement.

[resonant8.livejournal.com]

Interesting -- that's an aspect no one else has mentioned, the contrast of skin and fabric.

[hlglne.livejournal.com]

Yes, I am so sorry to be in the minority, but pants or any other clothing around the ankles or knees is megasexy. And makes a great handle. Adds immediacy also. I find it much more disturbing when the action grinds to a halt, just so the characters can touch each other wearing absolutely nothing. Does nobody have sex in the Northern Hemisphere in winter?

Though the toilet thing is an unfortunate coincidence, most sex does not take place anywhere in that vicinity.

[resonant8.livejournal.com]

Turns out lots of people agree with you! Evidently I had a squick that I didn't know was a squick.