Why is it that lengthy exposure to nudity decreases prurient interest and obvious signs of lust? A friend several years ago took her teenage son with her on a trip to Europe and to the south of France. Nudity, and especially bare breastedness by women on the beach there is quite common. She and her husband had tried to prepare him so that he would not be too much of an American tourist. It helped, a little. For the first hour on the beach in Nice, he was all eyes. On stalks. Then, rapidly, it changed. A breast was a breast. A nipple was a nipple. So? What’s the deal? Soon, there had to be something really spectacular to draw his eye and attention. Eyes began to focus on other rounded body parts. Partially concealed rounded body parts. The point is that common visual familiarity with nudity reduces prurient interest. Concealment increases prurient interest. Isn’t that the whole point of ever changing clothing fashions? That does not mean that we should ignore the power of sight and vision to attract attention. That would be foolish. We get about 80% of our information through our eyes. Our eyes are meant to serve us. Obviously we recognize the power of eyesight to initiate our sexual drives. That is the whole point about lingerie and porn. A lot of porn uses the art of partial concealment, and an illusion of group sexual activity. Another couple is there in the same room with you and your partner and “they” are having sex. That this sight of actions and sounds might stimulate your own sexual activity is just the point, and why today’s porn is so popular. The other couple isn’t really there. It is a safe visual illusion on a TV screen. It may even be a useful addition, given our new willingness to acknowledge the tenuous existence of the human male ego and the physical and mental frailty inherent in causing penile erectal disfunction. At the same time we cannot just blame the males of the species. Most porn is rented, or purchased, by women. This may be related to estrus cycling. Sexual arousal and anticipation for sexual activity in one woman may be partially transmissible through the visual media of TV / video / DVD porn. It is that other illusionary couple being useful in initiating action again. That is likely why most porn seems to be aimed at women, more than at men. I am old enough to remember the eagerness with which new editions of National Geographic ® magazine were anticipated. It was the only legal and available source of photos of bare breasted women. Now bare adult female breasts are much more commonly available in the visual media. The extent and intensity of American male interest in the subject seems a bit artificial today. Perhaps that is why American women are more interested in artificial breast augmentation and new styles of lingerie? Which pulls us to the last point, about the general subject of nudity. Nudity, being without clothing, makes it easy to see all the “imperfections” and the “less than perfect beauty” inherent with most of our bodies. In fact, clothing does not provide the incentives to do anything about them. If you can hide behind your suit, or any other clothing, you have a much lower incentive to lose weight, exercise, and otherwise “sculpt” your body in order to impress members of the opposite sex. How else did we become “The Fat Americans”? Simple, we lost the incentive to be “skinny Americans”. In western cultures, women are bombarded every Spring with messages about “slimming down” for the new, smaller, more revealing swimsuits of Summer. As if the job of “Attraction” was all one sided. Nudity discourages sexual activity. Partial concealment, with partial nudity encourages sexual activity. If we really wanted to discourage sexual activity, we would not have laws about common nudity. We would outlaw all small swimsuits. Especially bikini’s with strings and thongs. Think about it. Just because TV ads tell us that soap and perfume make us more attractive to the other sex, it isn’t necessarily so. God and evolution know a good deal more about sexual attraction and what the opposite sex’s nose wants to sense. Correct sensory pheromonal inputs equate to “Bingo! That’s the one.” Noses are much more important for mate selection than eyes. Why? Come on. Think. When was most mating done before we invented cities? During the day when everyone had to be up and about, scattered across the countryside, hustling and rustling up sufficient food for the day? Is that any time to be distracted by the needs of sex when at any moment, one might be required to flee from a hungry predator? Or at night when we clustered together in the treetops, and later caves, for warmth, and companionship? Clustered for a comforting touch, mutual protection of numbers, sharing of gathered food, and for sex? Which sense works best in the dark? Vision, or smell? If we really wanted to reduce sexual activity, and reduce the national girth, we would have laws that required nudity and the wearing nose plugs when away from home, in public, at school, at work, or in the presence of the opposite gender.
(c) Copyright 2006: George Wallace recently published a book on religion which lashes out at nearly all of the comfortable ideas about God, the trappings of organized religion, and the priesthood. His pithy comments and suggestions for a return to a God-centered personal religion will interest everyone. This article may be freely reprinted so long as all copyright attributions, and the full content of this resource box are included. www.OhGodIsThatYou.com
Article Source: http://www.writerspenarticledirectory.com
Please Rate this Article
5 out of 54 out of 53 out of 52 out of 51 out of 5
Not yet Rated
Powered by Article Dashboard
