I know I've mentioned this before (somewhere), but I read an eye-opening book about two years ago (Perv: The Sexual Deviant In All Of Us by Jesse Bering), that spends some time exploring the suppression of the disgust reaction during sexual arousal - a point that's really stuck with me. It's the reason that, to pick out a simple example, some people actually like to put other people's genitals in their mouth (I'm intentionally phrasing it to focus on how weird it sounds if you're not thinking about it in a sexual way). I mean, it's one of those things that's, like, obvious, but putting it into a (more or less) scientific context really helps you to understand human nature (and our behaviors) much better. Anyway, I just had another epiphany related to this subject.
The fact that your disgust reaction is suppressed when you're sexually aroused - so that you'll tolerate, even desire, behaviors that involve intimacy with what can only be described as "gross anatomy", all so you'll be incentivized to increase your chances at procreation - suggests to me that the things you're programmed to find desirable are inherently disgusting (to a certain degree). After all, sticking a body part into another person's orifice and then excreting bodily fluid into it - well, it doesn't sound very romantic, does it? But attraction is the key to the gateway that penetrates the wall of repulsion and body horror.
Why should these things be inherently disgusting, if you're not holding the key? Possibly because it prevents us from fucking everyone all the time - but since evolution would probably not object to this pattern of behavior, I suspect it has more to do with the fact that intimacy necessarily leaves us vulnerable. Not just emotionally. Or to external threats. But physiologically, as well. How better to transmit disease than to essentially remove the physical barrier between two (or more) persons' internal anatomy? Just like how we find bodily waste, or the stench of death, repugnant - largely because avoiding these things protects us from dangerous microorganisms. But in the case of sex, the potential reward is worth the risk (the only thing more important than survival is avoiding extinction). But better to limit exposure to just those moments when it's necessary - i.e., when you spot a hot babe, with whom you might have a chance of making healthy babies.
Anyway, the epiphany I had after ruminating on this fact is that this is probably why anything to do with sex and eroticism is such a taboo, constantly courting controversy, and inviting censorship. What you might find beautiful in an erotic sense is intrinsically filthy, and will undoubtedly be seen as such by anyone who doesn't share your particular sexual tastes. It's not simply that people are being uptight, or have been brainwashed by a puritan religious upbringing (although I'm not discounting these things as contributing factors). It's an inherent byproduct of our biological programming! Which isn't necessarily reassuring (biology is a tough force to counteract), but understanding the problem correctly is always the first step toward finding an effective solution.
I mean, think about it. Human beings (and not just our species, but organic life in general) are icky, gooey, drippy, leaky, smelly bags of flesh and guts. If it weren't for the sheer importance of the role that sexual reproduction holds in our fundamental programming, I doubt we'd even tolerate ourselves for more than a second. This actually bugs me as an erotic artist, because it reveals that the subject of my passionate dedication is rather narrow-minded and ego-centric. I mean, there are standards of aestheticism that approach the objective (at least from our perspective). You can appreciate the beauty of a fine specimen of animal, for example - the lines and curves, the musculature, the colors and patterns - without it (necessarily) involving any kind of sexual evaluation whatsoever. But that driving force of desire that makes an erotic portrait so... potent? Just imagine, if there were another intelligent species on this planet (or any other), what they find erotically beautiful could be unremarkable to us. Or, worse yet, actively repulsive. And of course the reverse would have to hold true. If the virtue of my work can't even transcend my own species, how much value does it really hold, in the cosmic scheme?
On the other hand, it's not even as though all human beings can appreciate my art. My subject is so niche, it's not a majority - it's not even a multitude that appreciates it. Just a tiny minority. So I don't know why it should bother me that hypothetical beings that may or may not exist, and that we probably won't come into contact with any time remotely concurrent with the existence of my consciousness, can't appreciate my work. I guess I just want to believe that I'm doing something that has importance beyond the tiny blip that is the span of my life on the universal clock. But I should be content in the knowledge that, even if it's only a few people, there are others out there who appreciate what I do. And that not only do I find it enjoyable to do, but doing it brings pleasure and excitement to them as well. That's enough, right?
Right?
But I wish, as a society, we could stop criticizing each other for enjoying the things we like that other people find repulsive, especially to the point of not just withholding another's happiness, but ruining somebody's life because of what ultimately amounts to a matter of unbidden tastes. We literally want to put bullets in people's heads because they prefer the taste of salted caramel to cookies and cream.
