In discussion with @builderofcastles here regarding the previous post I wrote where I discussed the "Free the nipple" movement he made a good reply. Yet it made me recall something I've been aware of for a long time and it dovetails nicely with what he was saying (in my opinion).
The taboo.
Have you noticed that we seem to have unusual attraction to things that are hidden, restricted, or supposedly not available to us?
I've spoken before how I do not think banning works. To me banning just increases interest and also can create an opportunity for corrupt power. It tends to have opposite consequences. (I'm really vibing with that Monckton's Law of Opposite Consequences).
How many of you have thought about the fact that in the Victorian era if a man happened to catch a glimpse of a woman's ankle it was considered erotic and arousing?
Have you stopped to ask yourself why?
They were dressed in very long dressed and footwear that tended to conceal the ankle. Thus, when the taboo that is that bare flesh of the ankle was exposed the heart would race and they would become aroused.
These days seeing ankles is a common thing and is not particularly arousing except perhaps to some people that may have that as a personal fetish.
We have had for a number of decades now swimsuits that amount to just a different style of panty, and bra. This has exposed so much of the flesh and is in the public eye so often that it is no longer as much of an arousing, or erotic thing. It is long past the time of the ankle causing arousal.
So what then is still taboo? Public display of nipples and genitals?
Well the "Free the Nipple" movement seems to be wanting to remove the restriction of displaying the nipple.
If they do that, how long do you think it will be before breasts and nipples are no longer arousing, erotic, etc.?
Genitals will surely some time after that follow.
Then it will likely be public sex acts though people may find it more difficult to become aroused to perform such since there will be much less taboo to trigger the arousal.
It also will make marriage have a lot less mystery and arousal.
At one point the only person that could see your spouse's body was you. You would thus be aroused by your spouse.
Now it is increasingly going towards none of that mystery remaining.
What is left? Talking dirty and saying taboo things?
Well that might become hate speech to some and your digital assistants increasingly in your home might eavesdrop and report you for a crime.
Mystery and taboo it appears are a double edged sword. On one edge it adds spice to your personal relationships. On the other edge it creates an opportunity for corruption and oppression of people for committing crimes dictated by a ban as taboo.
In the past I've mentioned the 21 year old drinking age. I saw more drinking by my friends before they were 21 than any other time. In fact, I saw large amounts of irresponsible binge drinking. Why? It was taboo. It was illegal. When they had the opportunity they would drink rapidly to excess because they didn't know how long it would be before they had the opportunity again.
At the time I resisted this because I came from an alcoholic family and I hated alcohol. I didn't think there should be prohibition. I simply hated it. I hadn't worked out why, or what to do about it at that age. Now I have no problems with people consuming it as long as they are responsible for the outcomes.
I did realize that that 21 year old drinking age does encourage irresponsible excess.
By the time they reach age 21 they may already be well on their way to alcoholism.
Meanwhile if it is not restricted and instead responsible drinking is in the culture I suspect there will be far less problems with alcoholism.
Though the only drugs I partake in are caffeine and sugar I am one of those people that thinks ALL drugs should be legal. People need to be responsible for their own actions.
I don't think there should be a crime for drunk driving. Why?
We already have crimes for murder, property damage, etc. If someone driving drunk does something that leads to one of them then use those laws. We don't need but a fraction of the laws that exist.
Does that mean I want people driving drunk? No. Am I okay with it? Not particularly.
Yet I don't believe in precrime. I don't think someone should be treated as a criminal until they actually commit a crime.
I don't see a drunk driver as committing a crime until they hurt someone, or someone's property.
Yeah that may be a hard pill to swallow for some but I don't think the government getting involved to ban things EVER ends up being positive. With short term thinking it may seem like a good idea. In the long run it seems to always make things worse. Again... Monckton's Law of Opposite Consequences.