For such an effect it is of course not indispensable that these signs should have originated in an endeavour to charm the sex. As in the foregoing chapter, we have to keep the question of influence upon the other sex apart from the question of the positive causes—that is, conscious or unconscious motives, which have called forth the various secondary sexual characters and activities. For convenience of exposition it is advantageous to begin with the first-mentioned phase of the problem. Without as yet pronouncing any definite views as to the aims the pursuit of which has led to the different systems of adornment, we may safely maintain that any conspicuous garments, independently of their ornamental qualities, which have served to distinguish the adult and marriageable individuals from other members of the tribe, have been of importance as means of attraction. According to the ingenious explanation of Dr. Westermarck, even clothing was originally invented not to conceal nudity, but to set it off.[301] There is room, as will be shown later on, for objecting to any definite statement with regard to a question such as this, the answer to which is to be sought for in several directions at once. But there can be no doubt about the fact that the simplest dresses, and especially those which have been interpreted as indicating a sense of modesty, practically accentuate the things they technically conceal. At a stage of development where nudity is the normal state, veiling must necessarily suggest the same emotions as unveiling in a civilised society. As Dr. Westermarck has been able to show, dresses are adopted by a majority of tribes on the attainment of puberty and on the occasions of great feasts; it is therefore natural that they should act as powerful sexual incitements.[302] And this view receives additional support from the arguments of its opponents. The large collection of facts that Dr. Schurtz has quoted in proof of his assertion that clothing originally aimed at “the concealment of sexual differences” may of course be interpreted with equal and, we believe, with greater probability in the inverse sense.[303] One has only to look, for example, at some of the richly-embroidered cinctures of the Guiana natives in order to understand that these coverings, whatever may have been their original purpose, can never have acted as an effective means of diverting the attention.