> I don't think all forms of shame is induced by society and is party intrinsic of human sexual behavior. Most see intimacy as contrarian to overly public displ

> I don't think all forms of shame is induced by society and is party intrinsic of human sexual behavior. Most see intimacy as contrarian to overly public display and see it devalued by the perceived vulgarity. I'm from a highly religious, Middle-Eastern culture. In the backwaters of this backwater, it's unthinkable for a male and female to even hold hands in public, let alone have a friendly greeting with a peck on the cheek. Nobody would think even once about such acts in Western societies. Now consider violence: people, in every culture, generally don't feel uncomfortable about depictions of violence in media. Violence is presented as glamorous as soon as children are conscious of their environment. Through toys, comics, cartoons. But none of them dare to show even a kiss or a romantic relationship. Why do you think that depictions of injury and death are considered more socially acceptable than the depictions of love and the act of creating life? Can it not be reversed? > Culture often was defined by the absence of anything sexual, since it was believed to adhere to higher forms of aesthetics instead of intrinsic sexual urges. Imposing communal rules upon sexuality is more likely a form of control over mating rights: By denying potential competitors' access to mates, we hope to increase ours. Almost all animals do this, we just codify it into our social constructs. And this fact is very apparent when you consider that the ruling classes of cultures which repress sex, never really follow their own rules.