In a prudish society, it is easy for many to mistake sensuality for sexuality, despite the former being quite distinct from the latter. Sensuality pertains to the pleasurable stimulation of the senses. Sexuality, which goes beyond mere sensuality, pertains to sexual behaviors or feelings. Clearly, a scenario or action can be sensual without being sexual. There are many sensual pleasures wholly independent from expressions of sexuality. For instance, eating food can be very sensual. But does eating appealing food qualify as sexual simply because it stimulates the senses in an enjoyable way? Of course not!
Though the mouth is used for eating food, the exposure of a mouth does not mean that a person is about to eat. Though the genitals are used for various sexual acts, the exposure of genitalia does not mean either that a person is about to engage in a sexual behavior or that he or she is thinking about sexuality. Absolutely nothing about public nudity itself is sexual, either on a physical or mental level; even if a person's body becomes physiologically aroused (which can happen for purely nonsexual reasons), exhibiting a penile or clitoral erection or any other aspect of physical arousal, absolutely nothing at all about the situation or thoughts of anyone in the vicinity is automatically sexual [1]. Exposing one's body and viewing the bodies of others, however, can be a highly sensual experience. This is sometimes mistaken for an underlying sexual atmosphere, when it only means that the experience of being naked or witnessing nudity can please the senses.
For example, the relative sense of physical freedom that nudity can bring is deeply sensual. The absence of clothing on one’s body can certainly feel liberating and physically, as well as mentally, pleasurable. But this sense of freedom is not sexual. Likewise, the visual sight of nudity can be aesthetically pleasing and exciting, and thus it can also be deeply sensual, but it, too, is not sexual. Activities like sleeping naked can be very sensual--doing so can feel very comfortable. Again, nothing about this comfort is sexual. That something can produce desirable sensory sensations or pangs of mental pleasure does not mean that it is in any way affiliated with sexual acts, thoughts, or feelings by nature.
There is nothing wrong with deriving sexual pleasure from the sight or thought of the human body. The problem arises when someone mistakes the human body for something that is inherently sexual, a mistake that defies reality. Sensuality is not automatically synonymous with sexuality. The confusion that comes about when people equate the two can be easily averted through the use of reason. Though both sensuality and sexuality alike have been the targets of ascetic legalists, any idea that demonizes either of them contradicts the entirety of Scripture. Our bodies were created with the capacity for experiencing sensual, as well as sexual, pleasure, and anyone who denies or ignores this in the name of Christianity does not understand Christianity.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/12/nudity-and-sexual-arousal.html
The problem arises when someone mistakes #TheHumanBody* for something that is [**ONLY**] superficially sexual [ devoid of spiritual intellectual emotional aptitude & depth & biological/chemical complexity & cosmic divine essence ... something commercialized “porn” & materialistic cult/ure does vapidly ad nauseam as an affront to God & Our Humanity ], a mistake that defies reality.
ReplyDelete* The Musician/Poet @Prince/O(+> has another great ditty entitled “#TheHumanBody” which jives with Your philosophy.