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

opposite sex, though they often are to the sense of smell. The sexual 

regions constitute a peculiarly vulnerable spot, and remain so even in 

man, and the need for their protection which thus exists conflicts with 

the prominent display required for a sexual allurement. This end is far 

more effectively attained, with greater advantage and less disadvantage, 

by concentrating the chief ensigns of sexual attractiveness on the upper 

and more conspicuous parts of the body. This method is well-nigh universal 

among animals as well as in man. 

 

There is another reason why the sexual organs should be discarded as 

objects of sexual allurement, a reason which always proves finally 

decisive as a people advances in culture. They are not aesthetically 

beautiful. It is fundamentally necessary that the intromittent organ of 

the male and the receptive canal of the female should retain their 

primitive characteristics; they cannot, therefore, be greatly modified by 

sexual or natural selection, and the exceedingly primitive character they 

are thus compelled to retain, however sexually desirable and attractive 

they may become to the opposite sex under the influence of emotion, can 

rarely be regarded as beautiful from the point of view of aesthetic 

contemplation. Under the influence of art there is a tendency for the 

sexual organs to be diminished in size, and in no civilized country has 

the artist ever chosen to give an erect organ to his representations of 

ideal masculine beauty. It is mainly because the unaesthetic character of a 

woman's sexual region is almost imperceptible in any ordinary and normal 

position of the nude body that the feminine form is a more aesthetically 

beautiful object of contemplation than the masculine. Apart from this 

character we are probably bound, from a strictly aesthetic point of view, 

to regard the male form as more aesthetically beautiful.[139] The female 

form, moreover, usually overpasses very swiftly the period of the climax 

of its beauty, often only retaining it during a few weeks. 

 

The following communication from a correspondent well brings out 

the divergences of feeling in this matter: 

 

"You write that the sex organs, in an excited condition, cannot 

be called aesthetic. But I believe that they are a source, not 

only of curiosity and wonder to many persons, but also objects of 

admiration. I happen to know of one man, extremely intellectual 

and refined, who delights in lying between his mistress's thighs 

and gazing long at the dilated vagina. Also another man, married, 

and not intellectual, who always tenderly gazes at his wife's 

organs, in a strong light, before intercourse, and kisses her 

there and upon the abdomen. The wife, though amative, confessed 

to another woman that she could not understand the attraction. On 

the other hand, two married men have told me that the sight of 


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