Some of the specific logical truths I have never seen get directly recognized or acknowledged even by those who have discovered many neglected truths on their own [1] are of immense philosophical importance. The following issue is not as metaphysically abstract as the points in some previous posts on demonstrable but overlooked or unheard of philosophical truths, yet it is not only precise to the point of being overlooked by perhaps all but several others, but it is also philosophically significant for what it establishes about sexuality, perception, and social conditioning.
It is not just that lingerie can be worn for nonsexual purposes (such as to feel confident about one's body), but that lingerie itself is inherently, universally nonsexual; it is only some of the intentions with which it might be worn and some of the situations it might be worn in that are sexual. This has been addressed in several previous articles, but some of the exact ramifications have been intentionally left unmentioned. The ramifications cannot be understood without their foundation, yet the foundation can understood apart from its ramifications.
Even if a man or woman releases a picture of himself or herself in highly sensual lingerie with the hope that people of the opposite gender will not only be aroused by it, but will also masturbate to it, the clothing itself remains entirely nonsexual. It follows that, paradoxically, something so thoroughly associated with raw sexuality being used in an explicitly sexual way has no logical connection to sexuality, only a cultural one. It is likely that only a minority assesses the philosophical significance of masturbation, but perhaps no one has specifically articulated this point.
All men and women who pleasure themselves to images or videos of the opposite gender in lingerie are engaged in a sexual act and are using the images for sexual purposes, but--unless the models are masturbating or performing other sexual acts themselves--this is still merely a sexual reaction to objectively nonsexual material. Pictures simply showing members of the opposite gender wearing lingerie cannot be legitimately classified as erotic media precisely for this reason. They can be appreciated sexually, like many other nonsexual things (intelligence, emotional intimacy, physical affection, bare skin, and so on), although calling them erotic media is ultimately irrational.
The paradoxical nature of how masturbating to mere bodies in lingerie is to masturbate to nonsexual stimuli is something no one I know of has ever proposed. A small handful of people have recognized that lingerie, like bikinis or any other type of revealing clothing (worn by men or women), is not necessarily worn or admired for sexual reasons--even by members of the gender opposite to that of the wearer. Whatever sexual excitement that seemingly many people derive from pleasuring themselves to nonsexual imagery is only being interpreted or perceived in a sexual way if they do not understand this.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/12/a-list-of-neglected-truths.html
No comments:
Post a Comment