Quote:
Originally Posted by Maggy J
With all due respect I think you have missed the point.That it's about how we view the nude in art and in real life.How it's more acceptable to see naked or partially clothed females than males and yet the male nude has been around as an art form for as long as the female form.
The exhibition however ran into the usual shock and outrage about male nudes.Note it's male nudes not female nudes.Plus they were not out to shock or titillate.
So what does it say about our society?What does it say about the complainers?Are we like our parents or are we more laid back about sex.
The fact that we regard an erect penis as obscene but not an erect nipple..
And yet our ancestors regarded an erect penis as something to be proud of as a sign of virility and fertility.I'm thinking of the Cerne Abbas figure as well as the Japanese penchant of making giant stone phalluses.
When did we star thinking that it was not something that should be seen? |
Imo it's because female bits are a lot more artistic and nicer to look at than the hairy dangly spherical objects hidden in mens pants, this is confirmed by Michael Angelo's David, he may have just been a boy but he's hung like a tiny baby and that's all there is to it imo.