[ Edit | View ]
Date Posted: 04:35:48 03/30/18 Fri
Traditions exist for a reason. We might, therefore, ask what was the point to this tradition?
Modesty is not transmitted by dna. It’s a learned response. You need only travel the world to see this; also, historically, it wasn’t just males who swam nude. Segregation by sex is a convention that has a purpose.
Female modesty was simply a cheap form of birth control before there was a reliable method. There is no power on earth the equivalent of social sanctions and if you can inculcate girls with the notion that sex is something proper females do not consider, you force them to rein in their hormones less they be condemned by the group as “easy” or whatever euphemism you prefer. And this has consequences, even now. There is a whole body of psychological experimentation in which women are exposed to pictures of nude men and asked if this excited them. Universally, they said no. But their bodies said yes. The monitors detected genital excitation, increased blood pressure, elevated heart beat, etc. Why the dichotomy in an age that praises sexual explicitness? I recently read one psychologist who said she thought this was a product of the messages that young females receive about sex. That they have internalized those messages to the point at which they are actually oblivious to their own state of arousal!
In the context of the subject at hand, what messages did female spectators receive? As someone else said, it was a way of sating their curiosity before they got to the mating age; it also reinforced their superior status as the ones who get to choose in the mating game; and, it starts them on the road to that incessant evaluation they will use to determine which male makes a suitable mate. That they can check out the “equipment” visually, literally allowed them to begin that process.
For boys the message was a bit darker. They were being informed that their bodies did not belong to them, but to the community, and by extension, the state. It was acceptable to embarrass and humiliate them in order that they learn to man up and conquer this comparatively (compared to war, for example) fear. More importantly, much more importantly, it was intended to help imbue them with a docility that would make them don uniforms and march off to kill and be killed without registering a complaint.
It had a sexual side as well. They were being introduced to the standards females would use to evaluate them. The qualities a girl might look for in a husband—courage, calm reliability, dedication, ability to provide—could be stress tested by forcing these boys to be nude in the presence of those girls who would shortly begin to rank them.
I only bring this up because I’m just so bloody tired of hearing this filter bullshit as an excuse for forced one sex nudity. The girls’ suits were made of cotton or wool, and three times the sizes of the boys’. They would clog the filters much more rapidly than would boys’ suits.
This wasn’t about a technical problem like filtration. It was what we would now call gender roles. (I loathe pc, but the fact that something is politically correct doesn’t negate its validity.) It was only a small part (a very small part) of a societal wide effort to produce what the late George Carlin called “worker/consumer units”. The function of female worker/consumer units was to breed more worker/consumer units, and the function of male worker/consumer units was to produce (something or another) and kill and die to preserve the system that produced worker/consumer units.
At any rate, that’s my opinion. What do you think?
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]