"If I imagine viewing her naked, it is not a folly of mine, but the one who made her"
It is the most intriguing object of arousal. No doubt great artists of all time have made their share of contribution by painting naked women, writing poems with descriptives entailing every detail of that curvacious bod and all points to the consequent pornographic movies.
Nudity is sinful, the world where I live in, it is surely. But is it really sacrilegious? Something that has to be answered now. Our society will say it is, but the justification is never convincing enough. A few custodians of culture and values tell me that sex, nudity and pornography arouse carnal desires which themselves are wicked. Let me put some arguments and offcourse with justification, why it is not so Wicked.
Let us answer this first, if you were isolated and left all alone on an island, would it be that your sex desire disappears? A critic can debate, answer could be conditional wheather you have had a past experience of sexual arousal or not. Let us take both the cases. First case is easy to answer, it would not disappear if I have had prior sexual arousal any time in my past life. Now, if I was born in an isolated island, in a totally hypothetical and impractical situtation, there could have been a possibility that I could have stayed chaste from this feeling. But that also has question mark in front of it. What if i argue sexual desire is inherent in me, you and them. Even little babies get aroused. I have seen it personally in a fairly interesting incident, I accidently looked at my 2 month old little cousion's penis, I don't know what was he was imagining but that little bastard had an erect penis. (oye don't doubt my character I aint a peadophile) Now how much is he exposed to the so called sexual stigma in this world. See we have to accept this fact that it is perfectly natural to have sexual desires. They are inborn.
We have to accept nudity and pornography as means of sexual pleasure or appreciation of feminine beauty. I think these porno companies are doing a great job unless offcourse they start exploiting the woman featuring them, which is something unacceptable and immoral.
The question of woman serving as objects of beauty is something that bothers most of the feminists. Well, personally I don't think it should be a concern since the woman leading the procession for female rights is always dressed up to kill, well that is again an effort to look good. Why can't these women wear lose kurtas, why they are so out streched on revealing every detail of the curves they possess. Perhaps their dogmas are self contradicting. Looking good is a part of ostentatious sexual arousal.
It is just that we often start things without defining limits and then scream when the water goes overhead.