I came across this intriguing post written by a Christian girl/woman, whom I gather is fairly young (probably in her teens or early twenties at the most) and, apparently, very sexually inexperienced:
Over the last couple months, my best friend and I have been planning to see that play Equus, with Daniel Radcliffe. For those who don’t know, the show is infamous not only because of his talent, but because of his big naked scene. I knew this, but didn’t realize how uncomfortable I was about it until now. And I can’t take back the tickets since they are pretty expensive, and our parents practically bent over backwards to get them. And the scene is apparently short anyway.
My friends who know about my issue with this have been telling me to “get over it”. My best friend said “You’re going to have to get over the male anatomy”, telling me he’s not that bad. I even had another friend’s mom tell me to “Sneak a peek while you can!” But it’s a fact that he will be full on naked, and it’s also a fact that if I did “sneak a peek”, my mind would be haunted for more than just that day. Why is there something wrong with not wanting to see a naked male body? Once I do, I won’t just think of him, but all other guys because I know what’s under their clothes. Why is there something wrong with trying to keep the innocence of not knowing?!
It is not my intention to sneer at this particular young lady’s innocence and inexperience. I just want to point out that her distress over the mere possibility of seeing a nude male body in a non-sexual context indicates what I believe is a serious discomfort with certain natural facets of human life, a discomfort that is frequently fostered by conservative, often religious, ideologies.
First, the human race is comprised of male and female members. We all come with different anatomical equipment, all of which has distinct and necessary purposes. There is nothing distasteful about this. The friends who advised her to “get over it,” pretty much got it right. All they were saying, basically, is that a nude human body should not embarrass anybody. Now, if she doesn’t want to see a nude man at this point in her life, that’s her business. And, frankly, given what she’s written, she’s probably not ready for the experience and should, therefore, sell or give away her ticket.
But, I can’t help wondering why she thinks she would be “haunted” for days by the image of a naked man? And why is she so concerned about “keeping the innocence” of not knowing “what’s under their clothes?” Am I supposed to infer that she honestly has no idea what men look like under their blue jeans? Has she seriously never changed a baby boy’s diaper, inadvertently seen a guy pissing by the roadside, glimpsed Michael Phelps in his speedo swimsuit, or even seen a line diagram in a biology textbook? I find all of that hard to believe. If it’s true, then this girl’s education has been grossly neglected and her upbringing has been far too sheltered. Moreover, I can’t help wondering if her extreme discomfort about “losing her innocence” simply by briefly seeing a nude man from afar indicates a deep level of unawareness of, and discomfort with, her own body and her own sexuality.
Second, the mother who advised the girl to “sneak a peek” trivialized the girl’s distress and emphasized a sexual overtone in a situation in which sex is not relevant. The girl was already in unnecessary despair because she imagined that seeing a nude man in a play would ipso facto be a sexual experience; the mother’s flippant advice only enhanced that impression. This Western (and conservative religious) tendency to equate nudity with sex is unhealthy, and, frankly, perverted. It renders people unable to handle either routine physical experiences (such as a pelvic exam) or explicitly sexual situations in mature manners. It’s the sort of attitude that leads people to believe that Michelangelo’s David is pornographic and other similar tommyrot. It’s warped thinking and it’s got to stop. We, as a society, simply must grow up.
Sadly, I must report that this girl is not alone in her discomfort with the human anatomy. Some of the comments at her site, including those written by married women, are equally pathetic:
I wouldn’t feel comfortable with it. And I’ve been married for more than 10 years! No thanks.
Don’t look! In a way, it’s like porn. Once that image is in your mind, you will never, never, never get it out of your head. No matter how badly you wish you could erase it. And of course there’s nothing wrong with the male anatomy. Our bodies are wonderful things. But we shouldn’t go around displaying it for the world. I’ve been married for 11 years and even though I’m very familiar with what male anatomy looks like, I still wouldn’t want another man’s naked image burned into my mind.
Your unease is a normal, natural reaction. What is not normal or natural is removing one’s clothing before hundreds of people. Don’t let anyone make you feel as though your response is the odd one. There is a reason we wear clothing, and it’s a very good one!
While I do believe that we can pray to be cleansed or to forget those pornographic images, it’s still very, very hard to get those images out of your mind. Certainly you can visualize other things and try your best to clear you mind of those images. But it will take a lot of work and effort. It is best that those types of images are never put in your mind in the first place. Avoid all pornographic content like the plague that it is.
1 Corinthians 10:13
When we are tempted, God will help. He will provide a way out, not to avoid temptation, but to meet it successfully and to stand firm under it. This is testing as permitted and controlled by God to produce sterling character that is a reflection of His own.God is faithful and will not allow us to be tempted beyond what we can bear and successfully conquer. He challenges us to meet the temptations that spring up before us on the road of life, beat them down, learn the lessons, and move on to receive the crown of life. He promises to be with us every step of the way. We can be
… confident of this very thing, that He who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ… (Philippians 1:6),
I understand the frustration of you already having the tickets- but stand up for your heart. Protect your heart and your eyes for your HUSBAND.
If there is anything virtuous, praiseworthy, lovely, or of good report, we seek after these things. Pornography is pornography whether it’s called art or not. Just say no to nudity. Who cares if you lose a little cash or even a lot of cash. Don’t compromise your values.
I can speak from experience when I say that the image WILL haunt you. You won’t easily forget your first “peek.” And it really can tempt you to dwell on what’s under other guys’ clothes. I’ve always regreted my frist “peek.”
Yes, God has brought me healing, but He hasn’t erased my memory. I’ve got to deal with what I’ve seen for the rest of my life.
Keep your innocence. Sell your tickets.
Puh-leaz! Since when does nudity equal pornography? I’m not advocating that people should roam naked in the streets, but, really, our society has got to get over its infantile views of the human body and sexuality. When we grow more comfortable with human bodies in non-sexual contexts, then we will be much better equipped to handle them in sexual situations. Surely, that would be a good thing for all of us.
– the chaplain
Anatoli
February 22, 2009 at 12:12 am
That last comment coupled with your own puh-leaz made me cringe a bit, and smile at the same time, knowing someone had the same reaction I did.
I hate to think of how strongly the whole concept of nudity being bad, dirty and against god’s will had to have been driven into her head for her to have been scarred by a glimpse of a naked man, requiring “healing from god” to overcome what was to her a downright mortifying experience.
So much so that she claims she has to deal with it to this day.
You were completely correct in calling these comments pathetic. They show a downright fear and loathing of anything their doctrines portray as loathsome, even though we have those bits in our pants just like the person next to us. And that really shouldn’t be that harrowing of a conclusion.
Why, to the same extent (Or even more so), she should be feeling “haunted” from the day she first took off her clothes in front of the mirror. She knows what’s under the clothes of every woman she sees, and since she’s a woman herself, that’d be adding another sin into the mix, wouldn’t it now? Really, a baffling, frustrating exercise in how people make life all the much more difficult for themselves for no good reason whatsoever.
Brian Larnder
February 22, 2009 at 1:50 am
This is hilarious and very sad at the same time. I’m shocked that the married women who commented are that insecure.
It never occurs to them, that if they believe that god created us naked and called it good, then it can’t be too bad of a thing to see that creation firsthand.
athinkingman
February 22, 2009 at 5:22 am
Oh dear, this is so sad, isn’t it. It really perfectly illustrates the notion that the more we try to suppress something natural within us, the bigger it becomes
Orion77
February 22, 2009 at 7:43 am
The choice of words she uses is telling as well, “naked” is the only description she uses to describe a man with no clothes on. The word naked can have sexual overtones & imply sexual vulnerability/opportunity, particularly as she uses it. And I really don’t know my bible that well, but isn’t the sinful state Adam & Eve found themselves in, after the nasty little python episode, described as nakedness?
Where as “nude” I would think is a neutral term describing a person without clothes on for purposes other than sex, in the arts and more generally in the community. Obviously as you say, she can’t see the difference between the two & can only view all nakedness/nudity as sinful. Somebody, probably mum and dad, must be pretty proud of the results of all the work they have put in.
The Ridger
February 22, 2009 at 8:41 am
I find it very easy to believe that she’s never seen a naked man. Lots of young girls haven’t, particularly brought up in very “devout” families. The number of times I’ve heard someone carry on about how “nasty” it is to let little boys outside with no diapers… And if she doesn’t have much younger brothers, why would she ever have changed a diaper? I’m a helluva lot older than she is, and I never have. (It helps that I was in Germany when my sister’s kids were babies, I agree.)
Anyway, don’t you remember reading about the art teacher fired after student saw nude statue in museum? Some parents work very hard to preserve their children’s “innocence”.
That said, I agree with you: it’s ridiculous and disturbing the way we fetishize and ban nudity.
Sarge
February 22, 2009 at 8:59 am
I think the young lady protests a bit too much. I don’t, of course, know the young woman, but I’d bet that such thoughts are kind of in the back of her mind all the time. A secret fascination, perhaps, much suppressed?
The dualism that some people have can’t be good.
The body is in the image of god…but it’s sinful to look at or feel good about.
Their deity says ‘be fruitful and multiply’… but it’s gross, nasty and a sin. Not to be enjoyed, because, well, it isn’t.
If a girl likes sex, is she healthy or a whore?
I could go on but it’ll put me off my feed.
the chaplain
February 22, 2009 at 9:37 am
Anatoli:
Welcome to my blog and thanks for your comment. Making life much more difficult for no good reason is one of my pet peeves against organized religion.
Brian:
I think there’s supposed to have been a difference between their “innocent” nakedess before the Fall and their “not-innocent” nakedness afterwards. *sigh* You’re right. It makes no sense whatsoever.
AThinkingMan:
You make a good point about how repression actually makes one’s awareness of the forbidden more acute. Do you think that has anything to do with the high pregnancy rate among “virginity-pledge” teens?
Orion:
Interesting distinction between the uses of “naked” and “nude.” I hadn’t thought of that, but, to my everyday layperson’s sense of the language, your distinction seems useful.
Ridger:
I can fathom her not having seen a naked man in the flesh before. And, your take on the diaper-changing scenario makes sense too. After all, not all teen girls babysit to earn pin money. But, it’s really difficult for me to imagine that she’s never seen at least a photo of David or another male sculpture, or a photo of a painting (it’s probably a given that she’s never seen an art display in person) in a history book (an art history book is obviously off the table) or on A&E or the History channel, or a diagram in a biology book (it’s a given that she hasn’t seen sex ed. literature). Then again, if she lives in a home in which the only literature is Bibles and Christian devotionals, commentaries and fiction, yeah, I guess it’s possible. Her home must be a culturally bereft environment.
Thanks for the link to the story of Sydney McGee. Sometimes certain segments of the US populace behave like we live in either Neverland or a third-world theocracy. If I had to choose between the two, I’d take Neverland.
Sarge:
You’re right about the tensions created by the conservative religious duality, especially about the body. Oddly enough, the Old Testament is better than the New in this area. At least Genesis teaches that humankind was made in God’s image, so, as Brian noted, the body can’t be all bad. Plus, the OT includes the Song of Solomon, a lovely celebration of sexuality. After that, the New Testament, particularly the writings of the Apostle Paul, goes on and on about lust, the weakness of the flesh and how sex is a necessary evil (it’s better to be unmarried, but, if your sex drive is really strong, then, yes you ought to get married so that you won’t be consumed by lust). The Church fathers really went to town with that stuff over the following centuries. It’s all very unhealthy and sad.
(((Billy)))
February 22, 2009 at 10:33 am
In a way, I can feel for her. When I was young, we lived at Death Valley. The NPS provides a swimming pool for the residents. I vaguely remember how much of a shock it was for me to see a neighbors toddler swimming nude. I have two older sisters, but this is the first time I remember seeing a nude female. I seem to remember being concerned with, “Did it get cut off?” before I realized that’s what girls look like. Of course, I think I was five at the time
For such an attitude to remain into ones teens, let alone twenties would, to me at least, imply either a mental illness or disability, or an incredibly repressive, asexual, prudish and guilt-ridden upbringing. I would tend to lean toward the latter.
As for advice? I have no idea where to go as I have difficulty with the idea of someone past the age of seven or eight reacting thus. I guess I just lack iimagination.
Digital Dame
February 22, 2009 at 1:05 pm
I have to wonder if she knew what the play was about before buying these tickets. The whole thing revolves around Radcliffe’s character’s sexual attraction to horses, hence the nude scene.
I think Sarge is right about the protesting too much. I think she’s experiencing her own burgeoning sexuality, and she’s finding these natural feelings and curiosity about the opposite sex at odds with the way she’s been raised and programmed. It’s an extremely unhealthy attitude that twists and perverts simple nudity into something so terrifying. It sounds like there’s more damage already done to this kid than years of therapy can overcome. And ditto for the married women commenters who are so puritanical. It reminds me of an article I read on Amish girls who leave the community, and go bonkers from the freedom and get into drugs and prostitution. There’s a dichotomy of all or nothing.
I did work with a woman (married, in her 20s) who went to Vegas and saw a show that involved bare-breasted women dancing together. She broke down in tears. I still don’t get that.
the chaplain
February 22, 2009 at 1:15 pm
(((Billy))):
I’m pretty sure the prudishness is religiously induced and not the consequence of a disability or illness. It’s pretty sad when religiosity can be confused with mental disturbance (as well as the cause of such disturbance, in some cases).
Digital Dame:
You’re probably right about her own burgeoning sexuality being a significant factor in this situation. You’re also probably right that she and her parents – who actually bought the tickets for her – didn’t know anything about the play before buying the tickets. They just heard “Daniel Radcliffe,” thought “Harry Potter,” and assumed it must be okay.
Kagehi
February 22, 2009 at 2:21 pm
Mental illness doesn’t have to be caused by a physical disease or abnormality. Religion is, imho, on some levels very similar to Stockholm Syndrome.
PhillyChief
February 22, 2009 at 3:33 pm
I think she needs to change “innocence” to “ignorance”. When you do that, her question answers itself.
The responses are hilarious. What on Earth is wrong with these ladies? I have a theory about the married ones. I know I can’t stand to look through Crutchfield catalogues, and I try to rush past displays in stores of huge tvs and new av equipment, diverting my gaze to my shoes instead. Why? Well those images will haunt me, and I’ll look at my 32″ tv and feel inadequate and be overcome with a longing for 52+” of lcd glory. In other words, I’m saying these women’s husbands have teeny weinies.
cl
February 22, 2009 at 4:42 pm
I agree. I used to have a friend who would get naked and try to buy things from stores. One time he walked through the drive-thru and tried to buy a burrito. That was a little much. Regardless, is this lass ignorant that in the Bible our original state was nakedness? God obviously wanted us naked, or we’d be born in jumpsuits with shoes.
PhillyChief
February 22, 2009 at 4:51 pm
Walking through drive-thru? That certainly is too much.
Alan
February 22, 2009 at 6:32 pm
Better to concentrate on issues like this that are easily taken to the moral highground than to consider the real implications of the mythology you’ve chosen to believe in. Concentrate on the leaves, people, ignore the forest.
ozatheist
February 22, 2009 at 9:07 pm
If they think a brief glimpse of a nude man in a play is shocking then they would have a fit if they saw this show.
I’ve never seen it, but by all accounts it’s hilarious and in no way sexual. I wonder what the writer and her commenters would make of that show?
the chaplain
February 22, 2009 at 9:31 pm
Kagehi:
Indoctrination is a type of kidnapping, isn’t it?
cl:
Jumpsuits? Ugh!
Phillychief:
Drive-thru establishments are very fussy about walk-ups. Go figure.
Alan:
Isolating one leaf at a time is easier than integrating all of the leaves into a coherent forest.
Oz:
That show looks hilarious. What an idea!
BlackSun
February 23, 2009 at 12:48 am
This is a textbook example of shadow repression. We fear that which we secretly desire.
Psychologically, the girl is afraid that if she sees a naked man it will start her onto the slippery slope (no pun intended) of moving toward the opening of her sexuality. But she’s internalized the attitude that sex or lust are negative.
Even without the negative socialization about sex, what she may fear most of all is loss of control. Because we don’t have a choice about our hormonally driven feelings (though we can choose how to respond and act or not act on them).
The longer the girl represses the shadow of her sexuality, the more power it will gain over her. When people don’t accept who and what they are, it is the beginning of all mental pathology.
The other comments you cited are variants on the same theme (and hilarious).
Lottie
February 23, 2009 at 8:48 am
Definitely! I’ve written about this a number of times myself, usually in the context of expressing my staunch disapproval of abstinence-only “education”.
Very well stated!
The Ridger
February 23, 2009 at 6:35 pm
It’s possible that she doesn’t equate a statue with a real person. It’s also possible that she’s lying.
the chaplain
February 23, 2009 at 6:54 pm
Black Sun:
I think you’ve nailed it. Unfortunately, if she doesn’t get her head straightened out, she’s likely to be miserable for a long time. So is her husband, if she ever manages to get married.
Lottie:
Thanks. You probably don’t want to get me started on the idiocy called abstinence only education.
Ridger:
It’s possible that she doesn’t equate a statue with a real person.
If she were looking at Picasso’s work, that would be easy to do. Michelangelo, on the other hand, put things where they belonged and in the right proportions. His statues are not living beings, but the resemblances are deliberate and striking.
It’s also possible that she’s lying.
Yes, it is, but one has to wonder what all the angst is about if she already knows what’s under guys’ clothes. Black Sun’s comment may provide the right answer: she knows, and she desperately wants to know more, and her desire is scaring the shit out of her.
DB
February 23, 2009 at 9:08 pm
I feel sorry for the girl, to be honest. I hope she is merely an obedient teen rather than a severely confused young adult (in her 20′s). It is a shame that so many people go through their lives thinking such a natural act is something to be ashamed of. Sad.
Spanish Inquisitor
February 23, 2009 at 10:28 pm
Someone should have just sent her this.
seantheblogonaut
February 24, 2009 at 5:55 am
Thanks SI. So I can take from this that Harry Potter is neither Jewish or Catholic
Sarge
February 24, 2009 at 6:09 am
I once read a story in which a person was asked if the were “innocent”. The one inquired of said she didn’t know. Asked how this could be, she said that if she knew then she wouldn’t be “innocent”.
Ordinary Girl
February 24, 2009 at 1:48 pm
I think it’s possible that she’s never seen a male nude before. I wouldn’t have until college except that my mom had a daycare when I was in middle school and I changed a lot of diapers.
But even in school biology the sexual organs were shown against pretty generic outlines. I could see the organs, but nothing of how someone would look nude. Pictures of nudes like David were only shown partially (to the waist) or not shown at all in text books.
I think it’s particularly damaging to women to teach them that their bodies are bad. Her entire self-esteem becomes tied up with keeping her sexual purity and it reduces women to sexual objects. If a woman is taught the most important thing she can give her husband is her virginity then what does that maker her? Shouldn’t there be attributes that are much, much more important (love, kindness, intelligence, humor, etc.)?
PhillyChief
February 24, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Well that crowd would agree, only they’d list such things as fertility/mothering ability, cooking and cleaning skills, obedience, etc.
The whole thing is quite silly, and this play is why the next HP movie got pushed to this summer, so as not to be out while there was all the publicity for this play, which is just more of this ‘nudity = bad’ crap (in fairness, not all nudity = good either)
the chaplain
February 24, 2009 at 6:49 pm
DB:
I feel sorry for her too.
SI:
It’s a good thing I didn’t click on that link at work.
Sean:
That’s probably a safe bet.
Sarge:
That’s pathetic.
OG:
I think it’s possible that she’s never seen a male nude before.
On the one hand, I agree. I was brought up in a pretty sheltered home, too. On the other hand, I was pretty inquisitive and saw, heard and did lots of stuff that I figured my parents didn’t (and still don’t) need to know about, including what boys hid inside their underoos.
Women are taught two contrasting things. First, their bodies are evil and they mustn’t take pleasure in themselves (or pleasure themselves). Second, their bodies, in undefiled virgin condition, are the most precious gifts they can give their husbands. It’s a wonder more of us aren’t totally bonkers.
Philly:
That stuff about delaying the HP movie was ridiculous. Some people seem to have trouble remembering that Daniel Radcliffe is not really, truly, actually Harry Potter made flesh.
Sarge
February 24, 2009 at 8:37 pm
My wife knew nothing about sex and anatomy, only the broad outlines from Girls Scout femenine hygene talk, and as I wrote elsewhere, she was briefed by her matron of honor on our wedding day. That was IT. And, she was a college grad.
When she was born, her parents were 45 and 56 years old, and she told me that she wondered if she was adopted (until an adoptee she was in school with told her that her parents would have been too old) and she thought she might well have been voted into existance.
She really wondered in idle moments, but it was just there, like the street and sidewalk outside, not a really matter that concerned her much.
Today we went to see the plastic surgeon (old reconstructive surgery is beginning to make problems) and the dermatologist due to melanoma.
The dermatologist I see is a woman, and the examination is very thorough. They check everything, even where the sun never shines.
I know men who get upset because a woman will (gasp) SEE them, so they refuse a woman doctor. Last time I went, a woman gave the doctor heck because now she’d think of the other men she’d seen during the day and as well as her husband, and it was SIN.
Doc looked at the woman, looked at my wife, looked at me, looked me up and down, and the three of us just shrugged.
I am pear shaped, elderly, saggy, and much scarred. So are most of her patients. Yep she probably dreams about us…they call those nightmares.
abusedbypenguins
February 24, 2009 at 10:33 pm
Oh, please, a nude man. My father was very despomdent and in pain when he decided to end it. I found him and that’s the picture I want out of my head. I would rather watch porn 24/7 and have that in my head than see that again. Finding him was worse the the year I spent in Viet Nam.
Vitamin R
February 25, 2009 at 12:21 am
Hah! I was this girl! And my so-called peek? Came when I was nineteen, and in my fourth class of freshman year at college. Ah, sculpture class. . . .
The first week was the nude chick. I could barely look at her to sculpt her and was uncomfortable for the whole class.
The next week was the nude dude, and I was noticeably less squirmy (big clue about where I fell on the sek-shee-ality spectrum, right there), more or less indifferent after the first few minutes.
Within the first half of freshman year, I saw more nudity than I had my whole life before that. It was in my painting, drawing, sculpture and art history classes. My studio work, my homework–I dreamed about naked people in ways that had nothing to do with sex and everything to do with finishing end of semester projects.
I finally got desensitized to it not from being immersed, but because the immersion was so very not sexual. Naked people began to equal both work and stress in titanic amounts, rather than sex. (Though in sophomore and junior year, dorm porn-parties took care of my puritanical sex-is-creepy hangup.)
Good times, good times.
Poor, dumb bastard. She’ll be alright once college corrupts her, a little. There’s a shifty, thin line between innocence and willful ignorance. If she keeps delaying the inevitable, she’s just gonna snap, and wind up in a Girls Gone Wild video.
In the meantime, she should see the play–and it is a hell of a play–and cover her eyes when the nude scene approaches. At least if she can’t accept it as an integral part of a tragic and fascinating story, as opposed to the ruination of her innocence, complete with the image of Harry Potter’s junk burned into her soul forever.
Tommykey
February 25, 2009 at 12:54 pm
It would be hilarious if Radcliff grabbed his penis during the nude scene and shouted “Expelliarmus!”
Sarge
February 25, 2009 at 2:21 pm
Abusedby, I’m with you. I saw a lot that was really obscene my tours in Viet Nam.
What is obscene to me is the children I saw dead and dying when I was a kid in Ethiopia. While “Jesus Loves the Little Children” was being sung.
The dispossesion of a people (my war) which caused the deaths and loss of dignity of tens of thousands for reasons of state and policy by a foriegn power. Children literally living in garbage dumps and being considered lucky at that, death and maiming.
Disease and health problems that aren’t remedied because “there’s no money in it”.
Pain and suffering from illness that serves not purpose, but can’t be assuged because there is a law which states how much paliation can be given.
Listening to a “pledge of alliegence” and seeing people literally in tears with the emotion of it. Knowing that it has been hijacked, that liberty is on sufferance and justice is a commodity, neither of them “for all by” any means.
That’s some of the things I find obscene.
the chaplain
February 25, 2009 at 3:52 pm
Sarge and Abused:
I agree that there are a whole lot of things more obscene than nude humans. You’ve only scratched the surface in identifying a small sample of them.
VitaminR:
Artists and many other professionals learn quickly to distinguish between the physical and the sexual. It’s a good thing, too, otherwise an awful lot of artists, doctors, nurses, etc., would be running around in heat all the time and wouldn’t get any work done.
Tommykey:
That would be funny. It won’t happen, but it would be hilarious.
Close your eyes
February 26, 2009 at 12:23 am
If anything disconcerts or makes me feel uncomfortable in a media screening I close my eyes I know when to reopen them because the music changes.
Greta Christina
February 26, 2009 at 2:22 am
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: People who assume that all nudity is sexual (and therefore bad) have much, much dirtier minds than the sex- positive folks who are supposedly obsessed with sex.
I’ve seen naked people many, many times. Sometimes in a sexual context, sometimes not. And when it’s not in a sexual context — when it’s a group of middle- aged folk nerds sitting in a hot tub singing about boar hunting, for instance — I rarely if ever get aroused, or even think very much about sex at all. It’s just not that big a deal.
In other words: Sheltering people from nudity makes them equate nudity with sex — and sheltering people from sex makes them obsessed with it — in a way that creates much dirtier, much more sexually fixated minds then just exposing people to a certain amount of nudity and sex information does.
Tommykey
February 26, 2009 at 10:03 am
Greta, you see the same thing in the Muslim world, where any social contact between men and women who are not married or related is assumed to have a sexual subtext. Like that incident a couple of years ago where a woman who worked for the Pakistani tourism office was pohotographed hugging a French guy who had given her sky diving lessons. This mindset prevents women from participating in the workforce and retards the development of these countries because they are depriving themselves of the contributions of half of their potential labor force.