Author:
Odd Job
[ Edit | View ]
|
Date Posted: 13:10:33 08/12/21 Thu
Well, Spelvin, you know my thoughts on this.
You refer to it as my theory, but it's actually sociobiology, defined as "the scientific study of the biological (especially ecological and evolutionary) aspects of social behavior in animals and humans".
And I don't think it's a mating ritual so much as a foundation for the mating ritual that follows. At the age we're discussing, there wasn't much mating, after all. But a couple of years later, wham!--testicles and ovaries start working over time; brains get soaked in glandular secretions; genitals engorge; heavy breathing, rapid heart beat; endorphins!! You know, teenagers.
As I have previously stated, using Thomas Hardy's aphorism that many things are too outrageous to believe, but nothing is too outrageous to have actually happened, I believe these accounts, of nude boys and suited girls, actually transpired. It fit the tenor of the times.
It certainly reinforces my notions of the real significance of the events.
I used to think that female nudity wasn't required not because people actually bought into that modesty crap, but because of the erotic aspects of nude swimming. It's intensely sexual to be naked and feel the primal sensation of silky water caressing you. I had always thought the idea was to keep girls away from that sensuality, lest the be tempted to explore other aspects of sensuality.
However, modesty, defined as "behavior, manner, or appearance intended to avoid impropriety or indecency" could hardly be twisted by any logic to apply to these accounts. Girls grabbing the honkers of nude boys? Women instructors and girl assistants grabbing a boy's dick during float practice? Women and girls stroking a boy's butt until he gets hard?
Modesty?? What is modest about this? Seriously, some one explain it to me.
A nude girl's swim class would have been like a nude boy's swim class--a bunch of naked bodies, everyone trying to expose as little as possible, avoiding flesh to flesh contact, keeping your eyes off other people, despite the temptation to look, lest you be deemed weird somehow, the majority embarrassed, and trying not to show it. Banal, sterile, institutional.
But with one sex bare ass and the other clothed, a CFNM scenario before that acronym ever existed, the whole dynamic is radically different. The power differential shifts dramatically to one sex. The girls learn to watch naked boys for their reaction to their vulnerability. Does he cringe? Is he a "good sport" and accepts it all blithely? (Thus relieving the females of any guilt.) Does he seem confident? Or arrogant? Or a show off? They're learning the foundations--reinforced by adult women and their peers--of mate selection. They're learning that they control sex, that males will have to approach them, and how to weed out the inferior suitors and embrace the superior ones. It won't become a real question for a few years, but this is where the base is founded.
Similarly, the boys are learning that the girls are carefully observing them, evaluating and comparing. They get the same message, that the girls are in control, that they'll have to take the initiative and display confidence (put on a display, basically) but not aggression; they'll have to live up to standards established by the girls; prove their reliability as lovers, providers, and mates. They also have the opportunity to size up (apologies, but I couldn't think of another phrase) the competition. And they're learning how to determine which females will prove desirable. The aggressive ones, who grab the boy's dick, or the shy ones who try not to stare and engage in polite conversation? The former might be good in the sack, but the latter might be deemed more reliable as a breeder.
The nudity has nothing to do with athletics. The boys are nude to allow the girls to examine their response to stress and to allow them to learn how to handle that stress.
None of this has anything to do with athletics; it's pure sex. It reeks of musk.
And it's the primary example of why I think of this as a learning module, albeit at the expense of the boys, by which both sexes begin to learn the rudiments of mate selection.
I think they also learned some of the limits of propriety. Especially with the parents watching, the girls were allowed to ogle the boys, even touch, but mom and dad drew the line there. And the boys learned to display interest (like when you're naked, no one could tell when you're interested?), but approach only when allowed by the girl.
Still, I can't possibly fathom what must have been going through the minds of the parents. Did they really think this forced strip show (that's what it really was; an adult would have to pay money to see that many naked bodies of the opposing sex) was a salutary notion?
I find the past to be as confusing as the present, just in a different manner.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
|
Feedback: 