Trafalgar Square's fourth plinth

Originally Posted by Martin

The difference is very simple! X-rated film or Porno is about Sex! The statue doesn't represent sex in any shape or form!

so why doesn't the statue have clothes on if it doesn't represent sex, its naked and pregnant so it represents the female sex.

Originally Posted by andy 1

can i ask how old your two are

One's 10 next month, the other 11.
__________________

Originally Posted by andy 1

so why doesn't the statue have clothes on if it doesn't represent sex, its naked and pregnant so it represents the female sex.

Nudity does not mean sex. Being pregnant means you've had sex (or IVF) but it's not like it's an advert or owt!
__________________

Originally Posted by andy 1

i see a few replies saying they would not be embarresed letting there child see this statue.
so would you let your child look at a pornographic magazine or a blue movie.

You're equating a sculpture of a nude with a jazz mag? That's bonkers mate!
__________________

Originally Posted by andy 1

why is the statue not pornographic

It's not sexual, it's natural. I think any sexual inference is in your mind mate

[punky]

To all those men who think that its wrong to have a topless woman statue in public... when you are on holiday, I presume you all wear tops at all time, otherwise, they would be a bit hypocritical wouldn't they?

Biologically male and female's chests are near-indentical. Everyone has breasts and nipples, because all feotuses when born, are female, before some which become male. The only visual difference is shape and size. Compare the chest of a girl with an A cup, and a bloke with a shaved test. You really think you could tell the difference?

Originally Posted by Saxodriver

Agreed.

It is a statue there is one similar in a few ways in Picadilly right facing Burger King which people was talking about saying was disgusting as it is half naked, it is a freaking statue not like it is a screaming woman being banged by a sweaty guy complete with sound and animation is it? how can you possibly compare them together

what i can't understand is why people cannot be embarresed letting young children see naked statues.
yet they would be embarresed letting them see porno mags or films they both show nudity, statue or magazine or film.
personally i don't think young children should be able to see any of it naked statues mags or films.
when i was a child the innocence of the child was protected now nobody cares.
all for the sake of pc or reallity

Originally Posted by andy 1

so why doesn't the statue have clothes on if it doesn't represent sex, its naked and pregnant so it represents the female sex.

So all those nudes in all the galleries painted by grand Masters are filth and disgusting?Or is it because it is of a disabled woman and you hate such people being shown?If you had accused the artist who produced the work of pandering to a freak show I would understand your attitude but to say that nakedness is not art when so many artists across the generations have used nudes and have had their work accepted by their peers..I'm having a hard time understanding your attitude.

[Martin]

Originally Posted by andy 1

so why doesn't the statue have clothes on if it doesn't represent sex, its naked and pregnant so it represents the female sex.

lol So a statue of a nude man you would automatically think of sex?

[dilli-theclaw]

....anyway - I just had a look at the pictures on the bbc site and I quite like it.

Originally Posted by Martin

lol So a statue of a nude man you would automatically think of sex?

in my opinion a statue of a naked man would be just as disgusting and should not be on display in trafalgar square

Originally Posted by andy 1

in my opinion a statue of a naked man would be just as disgusting and should not be on display in trafalgar square

Sigh! So Michelangeloâââ€à …¡Ã‚¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s David is to be avoided at all costs?

Originally Posted by Incognitas

So all those nudes in all the galleries painted by grand Masters are filth and disgusting?Or is it because it is of a disabled woman and you hate such people being shown?If you had accused the artist who produced the work of pandering to a freak show I would understand your attitude but to say that nakedness is not art when so many artists across the generations have used nudes and have had their work accepted by their peers..I'm having a hard time understanding your attitude.

1 i have never said i was disgusted by this statue of a naked women because of her disabilities.
2 no i do not think these paintings by the grand masters are disgusting but they are in the right places, art galleries.not trafalgar square.
3 yes i do think that children under 16 should not be allowed to see them.
if only to try and bring some decency and morals back to this country

[Martin]

Originally Posted by andy 1

in my opinion a statue of a naked man would be just as disgusting and should not be on display in trafalgar square

LMAO I can't believe people are so prudish over a naked statue!!

Originally Posted by Incognitas

Sigh! So Michelangeloâââ€à …¡Ã‚¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s David is to be avoided at all costs?

if it was in trafalgar square, yes.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Incognitas

I frankly have been horrified by the attitude that because someone is disabled or ugly they have no right to be represented in art.

Shame on you all.

Woah there! I'm not saying she cannot be represented in art! I just think that Trafalguar square isn't the place for a statement like that.....

[Martin]

Originally Posted by andy 1

if only to try and bring some decency and morals back to this country

Well good luck with that!

Originally Posted by Martin

LMAO I can't believe people are so prudish over a naked statue!!

its not just the statue its society in general and the lack of morals and common decency i object to.
and a naked statue in trafalgar square is not going to help.