Did you ever wonder why some couples like to get it on in the park? A better question is, why doesn’t everyone?
Warning: Some images may be offensive to some readers.
Length: 3,200 words
Reading Time: 11 minutes
Through several posts this month, we discovered that the overwhelming success of the Online Amateur Sex Industry and Socialization (OASIS) depends on a novel intersection of sex, culture, and technology, with a few key contextual factors being in place.
- Large potential public viewership (via. internet, smartphones, etc.)
- Mass aggregation marketing.
- Convenient implementation and accessibility of digital data (e.g. images, videos, financial transactions, etc.).
- Discrete digital data dissemination (e.g. control of viewership and access to data through subscriptions, etc.)
- Select privatization of social media (e.g. disintermediation, access from home, etc.)
The last post, Why do humans conceal mating? (2021 January 27) explored the question of why the privatization of sexual expression is peculiar to human nature. This post will apply the conclusions from this post to examine why the last factor above is of crucial importance. We’ll also look at the reasons why some people are enamored by unconcealed sex and nakedness.
Case Study: Zesty Zoomers
I came across this interesting and rather funny news article.
The Sun (Hana Carter): Couple caught having full-blown sex on Rio council meeting Zoom call after forgetting to turn off camera (2020 August 17)*
Here’s what happened in a nutshell. The city council of Rio De Janeiro had an online meeting. Sometime before the meeting was concluded, one of the staff members left the meeting, but he inadvertently forgot to turn off his camera and log out of Zoom. This allowed the other council members to have a saucy glimpse of his personal life.
I’m sure that things like this happen more frequently than what we hear about. Viewers might either enjoy it or be repulsed by it, but either way, mature individuals would not talk about being privy to such an incident. We might presume that this reaction is because people choose to be modest and respectful whenever they are exposed to the Public Display of Sexual Affection (PDSA), much like people react to other common but comical features of human nature, such as a noxious fart or a guttural belch. But this notion is revealed to be false in the last paragraph, which says,
“It is unclear if the person involved has been punished for the incident.”
The necessity of punishment implies that a legal or moral boundary has been transgressed and the person needs to learn the error of his ways. This seems to agree with how PDSA is regarded in general. Having sex in a public space has always been considered to be socially unacceptable, even obscene. Some jurisdictions make it a misdemeanor.
The Taboo Surrounding the Public Display of Sexual Affection (PDSA)
If we think about this a little deeper, it may seem odd that people are not punished for p!ss!ng in the park, but they are punished for pounding p*ssy in the park. We know the commonly stated reason for this is because p!ss!ng might be immodest and impolite, but it is considered “normal” or even necessary in some instances, whereas some variant of physical coitus, male ejaculation, and the female orgasm especially, are just downright obscene! Punishment is not warranted simply because of indecent exposure, because d!cks come out in both cases.
Neither is it related to Christian ethics, because unbelievers have the same reaction, and Christian morals are never cited in defense of this position. It is something common to human nature. The Sun doesn’t say weather the council member was engaging in sexual relations with his wife or the wh0re next door. Although this matters greatly in determining the morality of the act itself, we see that this makes no difference at all in regards to the morality of PDSA.
Yet in spite of this social taboo, we know that people continue to enjoy letting the wind blow through the grass. Women who wear short skirts and neglect wearing underclothes are dripping a subtle scent to this effect.
Digging deeper, we might ask the question, why is PDSA shrouded in shame? Is it because the sex act itself is immoral? The obvious answer is no. Ben Mocha, the author of the paper cited in the previous post , did not investigate whether pairs conceal the fact that they are engaged in legitimate mating, saying that “it is evident that humans know that married pairs have legitimate sexual relationships”. I agree that legitimacy doesn’t seem to determine the appropriateness of PDSA, although it does seem like it should.
Maybe the indecency of PDSA lies in the fact that it arouses strong emotions of a sexual nature in the observer, as Ben Mocha observed . Some people might consider this to be offensive, especially if children are present.
All this begs many questions…
- Why is PDSA considered perverse or taboo?
- Why are humans so intensely concerned about PDSA, to the point that we wish to punish offenders?
- Why is PDSA more bombastically offensive than the (im)morality of the sex act itself?
- What boundary is being crossed from p!ss!ng to p00ning in the park?
Concerning those who engage in PDSA…
- What is the fascination with having sex in public?
- Why doesn’t everyone have sex in public?
The article covered in the previous post  addressed some of these questions.
Sizing up the Possible Motives
In summary of Ben Mocha’s paper in the previous post, the researchers hypothesized that the reasons why humans conceal mating activities is to avert jealousy (Malinowski), envy (Symons), competition (Van Schaik), and social discord (Friedl).
Let’s see what the Bible says about this.
7 Then their eyes were opened, and they both realized that they were naked. They sewed fig leaves together and made clothes for themselves.
10 He answered, “I heard you in the garden. I was afraid because I was naked, so I hid.”
11 God asked, “Who told you that you were naked? Did you eat fruit from the tree I commanded you not to eat from?”
12 The man answered, “That woman, the one you gave me, gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it.”
21 The Lord God made clothes from animal skins for the man and his wife and dressed them.
23 So the Lord God sent the man out of the Garden of Eden to farm the ground from which the man had been formed. 24 After he sent the man out, God placed angels and a flaming sword that turned in all directions east of the Garden of Eden. He placed them there to guard the way to the tree of life.Selected passages from Genesis 3 (GW)
Based on the passage from Genesis, the reason people wear clothes is because they are afraid. (Wearing clothes is symbolic of sexual concealment.) We can assume that seeing the nakedness of others causes people to feel afraid as well.
Deti argued that shame is a demotivator [emphasis mine].
“Shame” is embarrassment, humiliation, or deprecation that others put on someone. “You ought to be ashamed of yourself.”
But originally, “shame” was intended to correct people who were making private things public. Or taking the private into the public realm. Revealing things known to a few, to people who are not supposed to know. The concept of shame was to get people to keep private and concealed that which is intended to be private and concealed.
The first “shame” was Adam and Eve knowing they were naked after eating from the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Before they ate, Adam and Eve did not know shame. God wanted them protected from it. Afterwards, Adam and Eve knew things they were not supposed to know. They knew things God did not intend for them to know. They knew they were naked, but were not supposed to know that or have any understanding of nakedness. Because of their shame, God made skins to cover their bodies, so they would not be ashamed. The skins were a symbol of their now-separation from God. The skins and coverings were between them and God.
It’s why the only place a man and woman are to be naked/nude together is in marriage. Because before that, you aren’t to let others see you uncovered. They are seeing things they do not have a right to see. And you don’t have a right to allow them to see you uncovered. You’re not theirs; and they are not yours.”
By extension, similar to the human habit of wearing clothes, the preference for privacy during coitus is meant to avert or conceal shame. As Deti said (in bold), this privacy forms a boundary between the couple and the larger society. It prevents others from gaining the knowledge of their bodies and their intimacy.
The Connection between Motives and Behavior
Three more questions arise at this point. These will be covered in this section.
- Why are people afraid of nakedness and PDSA?
- Why did God make clothes instead of dealing with the fear aspect directly?
- Why are some people, under certain circumstances, NOT afraid of nakedness and PDSA? In other words, why do some people have no fear of getting it on in the park or on OnlyFans?
To answer the first question, people could be afraid of what Ben Mocha mentioned (i.e. jealousy, envy, mating competition, and social disruption), and also shame, as Deti said. So this makes sense.
But if we come at this from a different perspective, I can imagine other reasons why some people would be afraid of public nakedness and PDSA. As Deti alluded, it is basically because the spectators might gain an unwanted psychological knowledge. To break this down further, this knowledge could include any of the following.
- Being overwhelmed by desire, lust, or anger, and possibly losing self-control.
- That they are missing out on the action.
- That their sex appeal and/or sexual performance doesn’t measure up to that of others.
- The heart-pounding temptation of joining in on the fun, even if only imagined.
We shall see that Ben Mocha’s paper  actually integrates the first three psychological effects [i.e. carnal knowledge] into his theory, which was described in the previous post, and will be further discussed below. The fourth point is covered in the next section.
Concerning the second question, God did not respond by giving Adam the bluster talk, to “get over your fear”, but instead, God made clothes for them, which required the death of animals – the first sacrifice for sin. We can only assume that God, in His divine justice, deemed that the creation of this boundary was the best response to the situation.
This third question, which is the overriding topic of this post, might be answered by assuming the converse of Ben Mocha’s Cooperative Maintenance Hypothesis, which states that concealed mating is a behavioral mating strategy used (1) to maintain mating control over partner(s), (2) to prevent sexual arousal in witnesses, and (3) to maintain cooperation with group members. That is to say, people abandon their fear of nakedness and PDSA when…
- They do not care about maintaining mating control over partner(s).
- They are not concerned that witnesses might feel envy or jealousy.
- They do not care that witnesses may be sexually aroused (or they actually wish to incite sexual arousement, as in the case of porn actors and OnlyFans girls).
- There is no perceived risk that cooperation with group members might be lost.
If/when the above conditions are met, absent social norms, the public intercourse of socially acceptable pairings would not be objectionable. So an unacceptable pairing must be done on the sly.
I’ll revisit these four qualifications in the last section.
The Eroticism behind the Risk of Unconcealed Sex
There is another very strong motivation to engage in unconcealed sex, or sex in public spaces, which must not go unmentioned, and that is the fact that the experience is extremely thrilling. Concerning the example of John Legend and Chrissy Teigen, Elspeth wrote,
And since all of this reported public activity is with her husband and the father of her kids, this isn’t really about cuckoldry, whatever my disdain for her vulgar ranting and political hack-ness, LOL. It really is about understanding that this particular act is a private one, not to be seen by others. The risk element was the point, not exhibitionism.
I contend that the reason all of humanity intuitively understands the need to cover our nakedness in sexual activity is because we can not – in our essence – be equated with or qualitatively be compared to, animals.
On this topic, I received a private message from a reader who wishes to remain anonymous. He makes this intrigue crystal clear.
I have noticed one thing that is universally true of every woman I have ever been with. (N=22)
To a person, they are all more orgasmic/passionate/crazy as a function of how likely it is we will get “caught”.
This is true of even the nicest “good girls”. My girlfriend in HS used to love doing it in places in her parents’ house where they might walk in at any time. She LOVED it! She was the definition of girl next door sweetheart. 21 women later (and every one in between), my wife is the same way. The middle of the day, kids might walk in at any moment. She goes crazy. The possibility of getting caught is extremely arousing.
The “fear of getting caught” thing is not about anything other than perception. All you have to do is create a situation for them to believe there is an aggregated increased risk.
After all, women are chickens. Most of them don’t actually want to get caught.
They want to feel like they might get caught.
See the difference?
All women are excited by the “naughty” kind of sex. Every one of them.
“I’m certain that [having sex openly] was true for Adam and Eve, but things have changed.
I’ve not yet meet the b!tch who doesn’t get off on some version of public sex. And I’m pretty sure girls are noisy [viz. openly flaunting their sexuality] to see if they can pull someone stronger to wallpaper her baby maker with baby batter.
That sex is private now probably has more to do with dudes wanting the security and folks having enough cash to not be crammed into the same room as the rest of their family.
I should add that this phenomenon is only effective if the woman is already super hot for the man, as Scotts Axiom states.
Applying the Converse CMH
In this section, I’ll review some settings in which unconcealed sex and nudity is common, and show how they fit all four of the qualifications given at the end of the previous section, The Connection between Motives and Behavior.
Some secular Manosphere sites, such as The Red Quest, discuss specific applications of non-monogamy, such as sex parties, in which mating is not concealed from others. In this case, we find that it fits all four qualifications mentioned above. That is, there is little to no concern about controlling the mating behavior of one’s partner; they are not concerned whether others might feel envious or jealous (and if they are and it shows, then they are booted out of the party and never invited back); they seek to incite sexual arousement, not avoid it; and the cooperation with group members is centered around the sexual activity. Of note however, it still remains important that the entire sex party remains concealed from the wider public, similar to conventional norms surrounding marital sex.
When we look at women who bare their bodies and perform sex acts to a live audience (e.g. a strip bar), or an online audience (e.g. OnlyFans), we find that it meets all four qualifications given above. That is, they are either not concerned, or not aware of any risk in maintaining mating control over partner(s) (although it is obviously there); they are not concerned that witnesses might feel envy or jealousy (bouncers or internet distancing keep this in check); they do not care whether witnesses are sexually aroused or not (but if they are, then this is seen as a positive); and because of the setting (in the case of the strip bar) or disintermediation (in the case of OnlyFans), there is little to no perceived risk that cooperation with group members might be lost. So within this context, if PDSA is acceptable to all participants, then it can be overt without any immediately perceptible damage done. The element of concealment is porous, but somewhat controlled by subscriptions and the like.
In recent years, there has been a surge of nude protests. There are several reasons for prancing predication, including…
- A deliberate tactic to attract attention and publicity from the media.
- It is claimed that public nudity is a legitimate form of expression covered by the right to free
- The vulnerability of being nude tends to reduce conflict and retaliation, as was demonstrated in the case of Naked Athena in the 2020 Portland protests.
- Some protesters seek to increase cultural and legal acceptance of public nudity.
If we assess nude protests according to the four qualifications of the converse CMH, we see that mating control is displaced by the focus on social activism; the brashness of being in the buff tends to elicit respect, rather than envy, jealousy, or sexual arousement; and the cooperation with others is either disregarded or enveloped by group action. Because it is done deliberately as a social protest, the backlash from the community is minimized, as compared to the reaction to one basking in the sunlight for the all-over tan.
Examples of couples like John Legend and Chrissy Teigen also fit the mold. They seem very secure in their relationship, such that they are confident that they have mating control over each other. (Perhaps their escapades in public places increase their confidence!); They might be concerned that witnesses might feel envy or jealousy, but this is accepted as part of the titillating risk; they might think it to be funny or a memorable experience if chance witnesses became emotionally or sexually aroused; and due to their wealth and status, the specific risk of negative social repercussions is minimized. In fact, in Legend and Teigen’s case, it actually enhances their bawdy reputation!
Someone might bring up the example of nudist colonies, but they would be mistaken. I’ve talked to people who participated in this sub-culture, and they said public sex was not evident. Even though people might walk around in the buff, it is expected that all participants should restrain their passions. People still expect to be respected, maybe even more so. So the common impression that nudist colonies are an orgy of flesh is patently false.
However, the Converse CMH still answers the question of why the participants in nudist colonies do not feel the need to cover up. Maintaining mating control doesn’t seem to be an issue. The possibility of witnesses feeling envy or jealousy is roundly ignored. The fact that witnesses might become sexually aroused is denied or dismissed. Due to the organization of the nudist colony, which has clear rules, there is no perceived risk that cooperation with group members might be lost. Of note, nudist colonies are well concealed by select membership, remote location, and fencing.
As for the element of shame… Well, it comes as no surprise that these people are simply shameless!
- Yitzchak Ben Mocha, “Why do human and non-human species conceal mating? The cooperation maintenance hypothesis“, The Royal Society, (2020 August 5) Alternate source.
- Σ Frame: Nudity and Respect (2018 February 21)