Lithose, there is a difference between aggression and invitation. There is nothing sexually aggressive about the naked woman.
Keep in mind, I'm talking about 'vulnerability' from a cave-man utilitarian perspective. We have already established that women are vulnerable (because they are inherently weaker) to men in all situations, including sexual ones. In the naked woman shot the woman is:
-Naked, or near naked, with genitals exposed.
-laying down, restricting her mobility to leave a situation quickly.
-presenting her genitals for easy access.
-wearing loose fitting jewellery and a long hair style that could be gripped.
-surrounded by cloth, further restricting movement.
-makeup that implies readiness for copulation.
1.) Confident enough to show her genitals and overtly demand copulation (Would you find it aggressive is a male whipped his cock out?)
2.) Laying down because she is completely unafraid and confident she has control over this situation (Some Gorrillas have dominance displays like this).
3.) See 1--easy access to genitals because she's confident she can have what she wants.
4.) Chris Hemsworth is the picture of vulnerable. (You referenced romance novels--lots of long hair in there).
5.) What?
6.) Yes, by reflecting natural signs for copulation, like blush. Copulation isn't vulnerability, invitation to it isn't vulnerability.
I'm confused what you mean by utilitarian perspective? Do you mean who is the aggressor? How did you formulate that without the context of a male in the room? Lets say the guy she was showing off for was some skinny book nerd desperately gripping his calculator and sweating while she sauntered in front of him? What do you think of the display then? You've added context that's not there from your own biases. Which is why I said, this is about context. You're not wrong, you're just not 100% correct either, and making a blanket statement like Mist did is REALLY silly in that light.
I think talking about human sexual interaction outside of the male/female physical power dynamic is disingenuous. Sure, we exist in a society where males leveraging their physical power is looked down on, but all things being equal, men are the takers in these situations. We know this on a sub-conscious level, and so do women. Both sexes have evolved to be aroused by it, and our society reflects this reality. From high heels, to hair styles, to underwear shape - women highlight their weakness and vulnerability, and men lust after it. Men highlight their strength and aggression, and women lust after it. Birds and bees.
Muslims recognize this inherent sexual vulnerability, and go to great lengths to cover it up, literally. There is no vulnerability to be perceived here:
Why are you associating copulation with an act of vulnerability? That seems to be the crux of everything. Yes women are weaker then men, yes this does produce SOME aspects of vulnerability into romantic displays. But it's disingenuous to discuss human sexuality, in all its complexity,with just the physical power dynamic in mind, we're a social species, social power has a
hugeeffect on sexuality. Where women hold a lot of social power (Which we have evolutionary traits which indicate at different periods in society, this was the case), the very things you're saying make them vulnerable, can easily be interpreted as aggressive sexuality (High heels to push her ass out is merely a sexual display illustrating she had adequate hips to attract male attention--in our society she can then pick or choose among competing males, that doesn't seem vulnerable at all.)
However, yes, the level of violence in your culture is going to reflect how you see women; it's going to bias neutral displays. It's no coincidence that Islam and Feminism get along so well--the root of their beliefs have men being very powerful and violent, and women being very vulnerable. In both Islam and Hardcore Feminism female sexuality like that is going to imply a high risk of provoking a rape, and thus vulnerability. Context matters a great deal, in a tribal society where women can be stolen, yeah, female sexuality becomes synonymous with vulnerability. But not all societies have to be like this--your very dick proves that depending on society women have had a large degree of control over copulation. Guess how big a Gorillas cock is? It's about 1.5 inches. Do you want to know why? Because they are in a society where all females are vulnerable, there is no voice from the females about WHO the dominant male is, that's a true example of an intrasexual selection species.
Humans have never fully functioned that way, we're an intersexual species, females have had a degree of selection ability, which is why, relative to our body size, a human dick is massive--it's our peacock feather. Men aren't always the takers, there is a reason why even the days when women were "property"--there were long courtship rituals where the woman and her family had plenty of say in how it ended up. CAN men be takers? Yes, but given our evolution as an intersexual species, it's obviously give and take. (As you said, female power is derived from social pressure usually, but look at Bonobos, that's enough to leave the women as the aggressors during sex--humans are more of a mix than most people realize.We'd look very different if men could simply always "take". )
A lot of it comes down to context. You can't make blank calls on sexual displays, assigning all female sexuality to vulnerability is adding your own context to something that has none. Sexual displays aren't vulnerable or aggressive, they can change radically depending on context. In a
social species social power is real, whittling down sexual dynamics to PURELY physical power is the thing that's disingenuous--as said, Bonnobo females maintain dominance
notthrough physical power, but because of social order. In societies where women hold little power (Islam) yeah, those displays might indicate vulnerability, in a social system where men using physical force is socially curtailed? No, I don't think that shows vulnerability. A woman being naked can be very sexually aggressive because of those social power dynamics.
but you get the idea. It's more about the person observing then some endemic vulnerability. It really has a lot to do with context.
