Must be reasonably common if she’s garnered 2 ‘Likes’ already. 
Plus ‘Rule 34’ …
2 Likes
In the 80s, my uncle had a t-shirt with a truly fantastic b/w line art drawing of a BDSM Miss Piggy - stilettos, flogger, and all. I’m sad to say I haven’t got a single photo of it, and I’ve never seen the same illustration since. (Others are pale shadows of that magnificently wrong creation.)
It should be a 12-point buck on the ground.
How about I meet you halfway? I’ll leave the dead guy on the right and add a dead buck on her other side.
The buck’s not my desire. I was answering chogliz’ call to make the image, “suitable for the fragile sensibilities of the American viewing public” 
2 Likes
I have to admit, I’m curious what that post was. 
Not knowing what all the other paintings are, is there any way of knowing if the problem is with female sexuality specifically, or just a certain point of sexuality in general?
I mean, the context and artistic merit of the statue David would kinda change a lot if he was sporting an erection.
I wish more women would menace society.
yeah, but even without the pipe, she’s smoking.
People think they’re modern until you show them a picture of sexuality that’s appreciative, positive, and not sneering. Then they freak out.
If this were some nudity where the subject were being degraded, I guarantee there would have been no problem.
Such is the irony of human sexuality in our current “civilized” civilization.
2 Likes
That strikes me as a potential definition of pornography. Or at least a certain kind of Pornography since it is a spectrum. If you are diametrically opposed to pornography then edge cases like this are always going to be problematic.
They were apparently OK with (and even proud of) fully-nude, tiny, women who were sculptures. (Last image in link.)
http://www.society-women-artists.org.uk/annual-exhibition.html
Somehow, I’m thinking it should be a caribou.
1 Like
Faint memories of the humanities classes they made me take… nudity has always been present in art but wasn’t part of the scandal that, at some point, the nude figures were looking at the viewer?
1 Like
Wow. Again the internet (in this case referencing something “pre-internet”) proves me horribly horribly wrong. (and leaves me feeling a bit grossed out).
1 Like
Yep, originally women nude were supposed to be idealized figures in order to get away with having the dirty content. So women could be goddesses, angels, even the Madonna - but not a real woman.
Women (nude or clothed) looking away could be coy, elusive, modest — but a woman looking at you seems to be seducing you, and women historically weren’t supposed to be the ones to choose (or control) their partner. Here’s a great time lapse showing 500 years of portraits of women. Watching it, you can see how much it commands you to have a person looking directly back at you. In fact, the first woman in the set to cast her gaze forward is Venus.
2 Likes
Sure. Nudes are not necessarily sexuality.
It’s a definition of pornography, yes, and describes at least a percentage of porn also.
What I find interesting is, there has been a certain amount of intersection between porn and the bleeding edge avant garde fine arts world. And what has tended to be acceptable to the avante garde, is erotica/porn that has some kind of a hint of irony or degradation. Some level of sneering at itself.
But honest, true evocations of the animal beauty of human sexuality - that just seems to freak people out and find no place in current “modern” art…
Seriously? I recommend you take a visit to this link. Many of these classic photos are posed to match ancient Greek and Roman statues.
Or you can check out this discussion of a statue from 460 b.c.
While an artist may create a nude because they want to practice their craft and create, others view it, in part, to appreciate that form. There’s a difference between “sex” and “smut”. Smut is, “any form of media that is considered profane or offensive, particularly with regards to sexual content.” Sex isn’t necessarily vulgar, and that’s really the point here. This woman being sexual shouldn’t automatically be deemed vulgar just because she is actively being sexual and is in charge. (She’s not having sex with a donkey.) The people commenting that it would have been no problem had she been a submissive image are most likely quite right.
If you’re arguing with me, I’m not sure why?
Just replying to your comment,
Well, yeah someone will probably see every nude as a sexual piece. (Pre internet porn, guys used to look at the Sears catalog to get their rocks off.) That doesn’t mean a nude is a bad thing. The question isn’t “is it sexual”, the question is, “is being sexual inherently a bad thing”?
This piece was not just moved to another part of the display, but totally removed because to do so “protected” “children and vulnerable adults.” That’s just silly.
EDIT: I pointed out the other nudes to show that other nudes had been not only left on display at the same show, but they were at child height, and were a point of pride. Only this nude was considered vulgar.
