§ 61
From the erotic viewpoint it makes no difference whether a woman is well dressed or not or even tidy, provided her ill-dressed condition does not interfere with her physical health. A woman in rags wielding a hoe or a rake or even a spade may be just as radiant and have just as fine and attractive physique as a lady in silks. It is a fallacy to suppose that erotic attractiveness consists only in the cosmetic art. This motive to keep herself in the pink of visual perfection appeals only to sight, and is at bottom more egoistic-social than erotic, however much the woman may think she is making an erotic impression by her appearance. The conscious appeal to sight is frequently only an overcompensation for her erotically unsatisfied condition.
As sight is only distant or vicarious touch, it is evident that the visual appeal is only a substitute touch appeal. That a woman with a homely face may be erotically attractive then is no paradox. The beautiful face is only the symbol of the “skin you love to touch.” The visible symbol may be absent and yet the kinesthetic quality be present. Furthermore all lovers who take pleasure from the sight of beautiful lines of the human form are only vicariating for kinesthetic sensations. The original sculptor is the caressing hand.