There was in fact wisdom in that curious scene. Did you know that you can look at the lower body of a person or see the face, but that you can't zoom into both at the same time? We are wired to see only what we focus on, and focus is a choice. I find it remarkable that in real life I am unable to see people as sex objects, whereas in my sexual fantasies I can. When I see the faces of people, I always find a story there; I find it unable to get excited about their body at the same time. Of course, I could only zoom into a body and experience lust that way. But since life always gives me a choice in this, I always end up choosing the soul rather over the body.
Actually, I wouldn't have the same choice in pornographic movies. The same applies to some carefully manufactured body pictures in magazines and websites. It is as if we are led down pleasure lane and the choice is taken away from us. The director of the movie makes the choice and we go willingly along like horny rams. We are presented perspectives that wouldn't materialize in real life situations in quite that way. Similarly, I am sure you could put together a collage that makes the lower body and face of a person visible to the viewer at the same time. But just because something appears real in the virtual space doesn't mean that it is. We don't have to be exposed to these images; it is our choice.
The Course in Miracle insists that we always have the alternative between love and the cry for it. Why don't you test my hypothesis. I claim that it is simply impossible to "lust" after someone when you truly look at her. You can lust after some body, but with every person you meet, there is first the falling in love part, or mere indifference. Actually that's the other interesting observation. Sometimes I read the faces of some otherwise incredibly sexually attractive people and find nothing in it.
We can never lust after a body without having mad