Main  Contacts  
Table of contents
PREFACE
TOUCH-1
TOUCH-2
TOUCH-3 (begin)
TOUCH-3 (end)
TOUCH-4 (begin)
TOUCH-4 (end)
SMELL-1
SMELL-2
SMELL-3.1
SMELL-3.2
SMELL-3.3
SMELL-3.4
SMELL-3.5
SMELL-4 (begin)
SMELL-4 (end)
SMELL-5
HEARING-1
HEARING-2
HEARING-3
VISION-1.1
VISION-1.2
VISION-1.3
VISION-2.1
VISION-2.2
VISION-2.3
VISION-2.4
VISION-3
VISION-4
VISION-5
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B HISTORY-1
APPENDIX B HISTORY-2.1
APPENDIX B HISTORY-2.2
APPENDIX B HISTORY-2.3
APPENDIX B HISTORY-3.1
APPENDIX B HISTORY-3.2
INDEX OF AUTHORS

but this is very doubtful, and E.C. Stirling found that 

subincised natives often had large families. (_Intercolonial 

Quarterly Journal of Medicine and Surgery_, 1894.) 

 

A passage in the _Mainz Chronicle_ for 1367 (as quoted by 

Schultz, _Das Hoefische Leben_, p. 297) shows that at that time 

the tunics of the men were so made that it was always possible 

for the sexual organs to be seen in walking or sitting. 

 

This insistence on the naked sexual organs as objects of attraction is, 

however, comparatively rare, and confined to peoples in a low state of 

culture. Very much more widespread is the attempt to beautify and call 

attention to the sexual organs by tattooing,[135] by adornment and by 

striking peculiarities of clothing. The tendency for beauty of clothing to 

be accepted as a substitute for beauty of body appears early in the 

history of mankind, and, as we know, tends to be absolutely accepted in 

civilization.[136] "We exclaim," as Goethe remarks, "'What a beautiful 

little foot!' when we have merely seen a pretty shoe; we admire the lovely 

waist when nothing has met out eyes but an elegant girdle." Our realities 

and our traditional ideals are hopelessly at variance; the Greeks 

represented their statues without pubic hair because in real life they had 

adopted the oriental custom of removing the hairs; we compel our sculptors 

and painters to make similar representations, though they no longer 

correspond either to realities or to our own ideas of what is beautiful 

and fitting in real life. Our artists are themselves equally ignorant and 

confused, and, as Stratz has repeatedly shown, they constantly reproduce 

in all innocence the deformations and pathological characters of defective 

models. If we were honest, we should say--like the little boy before a 

picture of the Judgment of Paris, in answer to his mother's question as to 

which of the three goddesses he thought most beautiful--"I can't tell, 

because they haven't their clothes on." 

 

The concealment actually attained was not, however, it would appear, 

originally sought. Various authors have brought together evidence to show 

that the main primitive purpose of adornment and clothing among savages is 

not to conceal the body, but to draw attention to it and to render it more 

attractive. Westermarck, especially, brings forward numerous examples of 

savage adornments which serve to attract attention to the sexual regions 

of man and woman.[137] He further argues that the primitive object of 

various savage peoples in practicing circumcision, as other similar 

mutilations, is really to secure sexual attractiveness, whatever religious 

significance they may sometimes have developed subsequently. A more recent 

view represents the magical influence of both adornment and mutilation as 

primary, as a method of guarding and insulating dangerous bodily 

functions. Frazer, in _The Golden Bough_, is the most able and brilliant 


Page 3 from 7:  Back   1   2  [3]  4   5   6   7   Forward