On ‘penis envy’
During the trial in Witness for the Prosecution (1957), the mere mention of knickers is greeted with laughter among those present. I have rarely found myself less in tune with the mood of a scene. For me, this garment is synonymous with the utmost seriousness.
Tight clothing on certain parts of the female body has considerable consequences. The so-called camel toe is only one of them, and it is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for an attractive veiled female sex (not seen naked, but still rapturously desirable).
My most important personal clarification, however, concerns the title. I do not know whether Freud’s penis envy is a common reaction among women, but I can describe my own first reactions, at a very, very early age, to the sight of the female anatomical difference (not naked, but still literally veiled, like a sculpted Vestal Virgin).
I did not have the slightest sense of superiority, nor did I think that girls were somehow lacking this, or that they were defective or inferior.
I felt that everything was exactly as it should be, just as birds have wings and fish have no hair. And I felt an intense attraction that I still did not know what to do with.
In truth, one never learns what to do in the face of such an overwhelming revelation, in which the veil can never be completely removed.