Standing woman, standing wave...

I don't make a habit of reposting other people's work, but I'm going to make an exception today.  I'm going to ask the beautiful women whose images grace the beginning of this post to help me make a point.  What I'd like to talk about is actually one of life's deeper questions, a question that has been dodged and ducked, covered up and ignored, proscribed and prohibited for a very long time now that really needs answered.  It's a rather pointy question actually, for as delightfully curved as the subject is, and it goes like this:  What in the name of Noah's pet whales is so intimidating about these beautiful creatures that one way or another society as a whole considers them such a threat???

Please understand, I'm not talking about the women themselves of course.  For them I would hope (me being me and all, hetero monogamous hopefully hopeless romantic that I am) a good and loving man strong enough not to base his ego on her beauty, several healthy children who will become a wholesome family extending many generations from she who was half the foundation of that family.  You know, my version of a happy life.  But that's just me.  No, what I'm talking about is what they portrayed for the photographer's lens when they took on the challenge of portraying not they themselves but an archetype of the idealized woman.  Why would society have a problem with that?

Well, start from the obvious, the literal.  They are by modern standards exceptionally beautiful, all three of them, and no, they're not wearing much by way of clothing.  You can pretty much see what's there to be seen: three truly fine specimens of a human female.  That's pretty straight forward, nothing in that which should cause alarm. 

But there is alarm and agitation concerning them, and it arrives from diametrically opposite perspectives strangely enough.  There's a sizable percentage of the population who will say they are being obscene simply by being photographed in the nude, and there's an equal percentage who will snigger and say they're not worth the time to look at being as how all  they are doing is allowing themselves to be seen in the nude.  Clearly there's a major polarization of opinion around the same visible stimulus.  Polarization like that is a solid indicator there's another power player hidden in the mix, or you'd see a simple gradient of opinion from "who gives a damn" ranging out to "arm five quarter-meg nukes and put an end to it."  No, there's more in play than simply skin, a lot more.

Next?  Next.  What function or functions of the human condition might be big enough to bend public opinion into such a sine wave?  Whatever might be revealed will have to have traction in lives structured to radically different value systems.  What will have almost equal traction against the lives and opinions of the most fundamental of conservatives and at the same time impact on the most jaded and degenerate, even though it pushes them in different directions?  Something low in the hierarchy that's for sure, something down in the primal ranges of the psyche close to the borders between instinct and intellect most likely.

Where instinct meets intellect?  Where's that?  And more particularly what part of that interface relates to  women, beautiful or otherwise?  Ok, women… half the species give or take, most generally the gatherers rather than the hunters, more prone to nurture than defend, fierce far beyond the male when they do fight.  In other words, the momma types.  Momma types?  Well, duh, the subset of mothers is wholly enclosed within the subset of woman, that's a gimme.  It's also probably the most powerful of the gimme's, which in my opinion makes it the prime candidate for that other factor playing in the game.

It’s been my experience from talking to folks from both camps that if you wanted to plot their position on the matter on a standard x-y graph the x-axis line (dividing those who get mad at the girls for being nude and those who think just being nude isn’t enough to attract their attention) runs parallel with their other attitudes concerning things where society bumps into maternity.  From the same sources it seems the intensity of their opinion is heavily influenced by the degree of active insecure vanity and the true size of their sphere of empathy, in other words their true level of maturity.  Ok, I’m gonna go pour a cup of coffee, I’ll listen to your scolding for being judgmental when I get back. 

One funny thing I've noticed is this: the more mature the individual the less extreme their position seems to be regardless of the polarity of their sentiments.  But then again, starting from the idea of baggage associated with momma types driving the whole affair that shouldn't be so surprising.  Obviously the more emotionally mature someone is the less need they have for the kind of nurture momma gave them, or should have given them, in childhood so that right there drops the chance of resentments that can play in either direction. 

But just look at her.  She's obviously going to be somebody's mother, and who wouldn't want a mom like that! (with all the confidence and composure so clearly on display).  You know, don't show me what I had to much of (conservative looking for emotional freedom), don't show me what I didn't get enough of (liberal looking for society to make up the difference), or maybe it's the other way around in some cases, but in any case for damn sure don't show me what Daddy got and I didn't! (sorry, but you did... just at the other  end of sex ;-). 

So yea, all that fits pretty well, makes a working start on figuring out the intensity of folks' feelings on the subject.  I'll leave that one sit out for the time being, see what comes back.  Now, as for what determines their polarity on the subject?  You know, those who'll say "that babe needs bent over and…" running over to those who'll say "I hope she didn't catch a cold without her clothes…"?  I'm afraid that will involve digging around in their attitudes concerning Daddy types, and that's another subject all unto itself.