Prudery and Hypocrisy

JupiterKid

I see Facebook "censored" a photo of the Venus of Willendorf, a circa 25,000 year old stone sculpture and a very important piece of cultural artefact. This is truly ridiculous.

Does anyone else think a culture which worships guns but is so hung up on a pic of a nude statue - or any nudity for that matter, and equates nudity with sex but has a booming hard-core porn industry, has its priorities screwed up?

Link here: https://hyperallergic.com/429553/facebook-censors-venus-of-willendorf/

dxhound2005

JupiterKid wrote: »

I see Facebook "censored" a photo of the Venus of Willendorf, a circa 25,000 year old stone sculpture and a very important piece of cultural artefact. This is truly ridiculous.

Does anyone else think a culture which worships guns but is so hung up on a pic of a nude statue - or any nudity for that matter, and equates nudity with sex but has a booming hard-core porn industry, as its priorities screwed up?

Link here: https://hyperallergic.com/429553/facebook-censors-venus-of-willendorf/

It was a computer that did it. They're stupid.

Samuel T. Cogley

Some pair on that lass.

Greybottle

I don't think that the people who oppose nude statues are the same people who are making the pornos.

JupiterKid

Greybottle wrote: »

I don't think that the people who oppose nude statues are the same people who are making the pornos.

I've read up quite a bit on cultural approaches to the body and nudity and it is shown that cultures with the most prudery (like the USA) and body shaming and general uptightness about any form of nudity - liking it with sex - usually have thriving sex industries, porn being a huge element. There seems to be an inverse relationship between the two. During the incredibly prudish Victorian era the use of prostitution thrived. Complete hypocrisy.

Don't get me wrong, porn as long as its not exploitative, violent or involving minors is fine in moderation, and let's admit we've all indulged now and then but to feel the need to cover up a stone statue is beyond ridiculous. The human body and physique can be beautiful and humankind has expressed this beauty through art for millenia. Nothing shameful about that.

kneemos

The full frontal uncensored version.

https://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.EwcKhcQLES1f7raybcEnLwHaML&pid=15.1&H=262&W=160&P=0

Cheerful Spring

https://www.redletterchristians.org/where-have-all-the-penises-gone-sexuality-church/

It became apparent to me today that many of the statues within Vatican City museum have had their penises lopped off and replaced with a fig leaf. I do not claim to be an art historian of any variety, my interest lies more in the social implications of such an act. Historically, as far as I was able to tell through some quick research, the penis’s were removed by order of various popes in the middle ages. It is a sad desecration of these beautiful pieces of art that, in itself, symbolises a sad religious emasculation of all things sexual. Perhaps it was simply seen as improper in their time. Perhaps it was a fearful running away from anything to do with sexuality. A separation of sexuality from anything to do with spirituality. A separation of the person who is good from the body that is not.

ancapailldorcha

Be honest, who else had to google "Venus of Willendorf"?

weisses

JupiterKid wrote: »

I see Facebook "censored" a photo of the Venus of Willendorf, a circa 25,000 year old stone sculpture and a very important piece of cultural artefact. This is truly ridiculous.

Does anyone else think a culture which worships guns but is so hung up on a pic of a nude statue - or any nudity for that matter, and equates nudity with sex but has a booming hard-core porn industry, has its priorities screwed up?

Link here: https://hyperallergic.com/429553/facebook-censors-venus-of-willendorf/

Ohh yes

Nothing new here though

weisses

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Be honest, who else had to google "Venus of Willendorf"?

The acid rain didn't do her any good

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Wasn't so long ago that idea of nudity equating to sex was normal in Ireland. Still exists today, too (as an artist who works with the nude body a lot I can guarantee you this first hand).

I've always seen it as childish more than anything - some people just need to grow up.

kneemos

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Be honest, who else had to google "Venus of Willendorf"?

\○.

johnnyskeleton

Uuuuugghhh. Smacks of people going out of their way to be offended. Facebook computer mistakes artwork for nuity, therefore all american society is backwards.

biko

I don't like big butts and I cannot lie

Insect Overlord

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Be honest, who else had to google "Venus of Willendorf"?

I've seen pictures of that statuette many times, but never knew what it was called until now!

One eyed Jack

JupiterKid wrote: »

Does anyone else think a culture which worships guns but is so hung up on a pic of a nude statue - or any nudity for that matter, and equates nudity with sex but has a booming hard-core porn industry, has its priorities screwed up?

You're joking surely? Nude Nuns with Big Guns is a classic!!

One eyed Jack

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Wasn't so long ago that idea of nudity equating to sex was normal in Ireland. Still exists today, too (as an artist who works with the nude body a lot I can guarantee you this first hand).

I've always seen it as childish more than anything - some people just need to grow up.

Nudity is still equated with sex for the vast majority of people in many societies, otherwise it's just called dry humping, something I never did as a teen, let alone a child, and I'd be surprised if adults did it, always seemed incredibly immature to me tbh.

myshirt

I'm with you op. They done the same with the classic 19th century painting L'Origine du Monde.

Oldtree

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

It became apparent to me today that many of the statues within Vatican City museum have had their penises lopped off and replaced with a fig leaf.

It is my understanding that frottering of the statues by the frocked ones, had gotten out of hand and needed to be brought under tighter control

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Nudity is still equated with sex for the vast majority of people in many societies, otherwise it's just called dry humping, something I never did as a teen, let alone a child, and I'd be surprised if adults did it, always seemed incredibly immature to me tbh.

Eh, no it isn't? Pretty insular opinon, tbh.

How the **** do you manage to showhorn "dry-humping" into the conversation..? THAT's immature.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

One eyed Jack

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Eh, no it isn't? Pretty insular opinon, tbh.

How the **** do you manage to showhorn "dry-humping" into the conversation..? THAT's immature.

When's the last time you had sex with your clothes on?

Nudity is generally a prerequisite to sexual intercourse, therefore of course people generally tend to associate nudity with sex.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

One eyed Jack wrote: »

When's the last time you had sex with your clothes on?

Nudity is generally a prerequisite to sexual intercourse, therefore of course people generally tend to associate nudity with sex.

This kind of makes my point: there's this implication that every time you get naked, there's going to be sex. What about showering? Or changing? Or life-drawing in an art college? Or spending an afternoon on a nudist beach where there's hundreds of people around, including families? You're not seriously implying that they're all there for the sex, are you?

Whether or not you're naked when you DO have sex is irrelevant. Plenty of people (myself included) have gone to a club, gotten drunk and had a shag with the minimal amount of undress.

One eyed Jack

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

This kind of makes my point: there's this implication that every time you get naked, there's going to be sex. What about showering? Or changing? Or life-drawing in an art college? Or spending an afternoon on a nudist beach where there's hundreds of people around, including families? You're not seriously implying that they're all there for the sex, are you?

Whether or not you're naked when you DO have sex is irrelevant. Plenty of people (myself included) have gone to a club, gotten drunk and had a shag with the minimal amount of undress.

Of course it's relevant, that's why the association between nudity and sex exists. Of course there are many other times when people are naked, but generally, for sex, people get naked. There's nothing childish about the association either, because children don't generally associate nudity with sex, so your comment that some people need to grow up? Using your line of reasoning, it would be more like people reverting to their childhood when they didn't associate nudity with sex.

Me personally though, I never saw anything wrong with associating nudity with sex. The way you're talking about having seen naked bodies because you're an artist, or all those other activities you mentioned, those are indeed associated with nudity too, but somehow an association between nudity and sex is low brow, immature, insular or childish?

I don't get that PCB, I really don't.

odyssey06

Am I the only one who thinks almost naked is sexier than all naked... leave a little mystery...

If everyone walked around naked all the time, it'd get boring.

Arcade_Tryer

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Of course it's relevant, that's why the association between nudity and sex exists. Of course there are many other times when people are naked, but generally, for sex, people get naked. There's nothing childish about the association either, because children don't generally associate nudity with sex, so your comment that some people need to grow up? Using your line of reasoning, it would be more like people reverting to their childhood when they didn't associate nudity with sex.

Me personally though, I never saw anything wrong with associating nudity with sex. The way you're talking about having seen naked bodies because you're an artist, or all those other activities you mentioned, those are indeed associated with nudity too, but somehow an association between nudity and sex is low brow, immature, insular or childish?

I don't get that PCB, I really don't.

You appear to be conflating sex with sexual arousal.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Of course it's relevant, that's why the association between nudity and sex exists. Of course there are many other times when people are naked, but generally, for sex, people get naked. There's nothing childish about the association either, because children don't generally associate nudity with sex, so your comment that some people need to grow up? Using your line of reasoning, it would be more like people reverting to their childhood when they didn't associate nudity with sex.

Me personally though, I never saw anything wrong with associating nudity with sex. The way you're talking about having seen naked bodies because you're an artist, or all those other activities you mentioned, those are indeed associated with nudity too, but somehow an association between nudity and sex is low brow, immature, insular or childish?

I don't get that PCB, I really don't.

This is flipping the argument a bit: I said that people equate nudity with sex, you're equating sex with nudity.

I've highlighted how there can be nudity without sex - which was my initial point - in the last post. You seem to have accepted this in the boldened part above. You certainly haven't presented any argument.

As so sex without nudity? Well, that's your premise, but I delt with that too. Again, you don't seem to have presented anything contrasting what I said in the quoted post. I don't find this childish. Limiting, yes; but not childish.

There's nothing wrong with associating nudity with sex. Again, that wasn't my point. It was the idea that nudity is ALWAYS associated with sex I find immature. Case in point: I'm an artist - I draw nude models all the time - sometimes I encounter the attitude that this is is some way sexual. THIS is when I find myself rolling my eyes and thinking; grow the **** up.

Wibbs

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Be honest, who else had to google "Venus of Willendorf"?

Tragically, I didn't. There's a load of them too, found throughout Europe from that time. Very few male figures by comparison(the Lion man of Holenstein, though he's the oldest), it was all about the ladies. Carved or painted fannies on caves another feature of the time. Nearly all the Venus' are exaggeratedly obese. Well I suppose in a time of scarce resources when fat women would have been rare, it was a sign of plenty, or a wish for it. Maybe they were a representation of a goddess. They took a very long time to make from either bone, ivory or stone. Months of labour pretty much, so were apparently important enough to tie up a resource like an artist that could otherwise be out getting food. It could well be the first example of a specialised "job" in human history.

One eyed Jack

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

There's nothing wrong with associating nudity with sex.

From the way you're talking, I thought that your point was that there was something wrong with associating nudity with sex, or vice versa. They're intrinsically linked in many cultures. That's my point, and that's why when you said it wasn't so long ago that the idea of equating nudity with sex existed in Ireland, it's as though you're implying that this association isn't normal today, and is something to be ashamed of.

When JupiterKid talks about hypocrisy and prude attitudes to nudity and sex and sexuality, it strikes me as odd that you would think just because you don't make that association, means the vast majority of people wouldn't. The vast majority of people aren't artists, and generally don't spend their days sculpting or painting naked life models. I'm fairly certain you don't take your work home with you, and that's how you can separate what you do for a living, from your personal interactions. They're different contexts, so to make the point that just because you're all day around naked bodies means you wouldn't still associate nudity with sex is just silly tbh.

Again, that wasn't my point. It was the idea that nudity is ALWAYS associated with sex I find immature. Case in point: I'm an artist - I draw nude models all the time - sometimes I encounter the attitude that this is is some way sexual. THIS is when I find myself rolling my eyes and thinking; grow the **** up.

Are your students drawing nude models all the time? That's really my point. Your attitude towards your work is just that, it's normal for you, but you wouldn't be representative of the general population in a society which doesn't spend all day around naked bodies and is generally susceptible to advertising which often uses nudity and near nudity to sell products, and people are bombarded with those images every day, so to say that the association is immature or imply that it isn't normal is actually insular thinking on your part.

Of course you're going to think would they ever grow up, and you see the association as immature, but I think you have it backwards if you imagine your attitude to the association between nudity and sexuality is normal, and your students attitudes isn't perfectly normal.

JupiterKid

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Stop trying to defend the USA as a whole. I'm well aware how diverse and multifaceted the country is. I've travelled all over the country and lived in Northern California for a while in the late 90s. Prudery is liked to thriving pornography. The country as a whole is deeply messed up. Deeply.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

One eyed Jack wrote: »

From the way you're talking, I thought that your point was that there was something wrong with associating nudity with sex, or vice versa. They're intrinsically linked in many cultures. That's my point, and that's why when you said it wasn't so long ago that the idea of equating nudity with sex existed in Ireland, it's as though you're implying that this association isn't normal today, and is something to be ashamed of.

Back in the day, it was: nudity meant sex and sex was sinful. Nowadays, I meet people every now and again who think nudity is sex automatically. THIS is childish (apologies if I didn't make that clear)

Most European societies have manage to differentiate between the two very succesfully: nudity does not equate sex.

When JupiterKid talks about hypocrisy and prude attitudes to nudity and sex and sexuality, it strikes me as odd that you would think just because you don't make that association, means the vast majority of people wouldn't. The vast majority of people aren't artists, and generally don't spend their days sculpting or painting naked life models. I'm fairly certain you don't take your work home with you, and that's how you can separate what you do for a living, from your personal interactions. They're different contexts, so to make the point that just because you're all day around naked bodies means you wouldn't still associate nudity with sex is just silly tbh.

But a lot of people do - trust me on this.

Are your students drawing nude models all the time? That's really my point. Your attitude towards your work is just that, it's normal for you, but you wouldn't be representative of the general population in a society which doesn't spend all day around naked bodies and is generally susceptible to advertising which often uses nudity and near nudity to sell products, and people are bombarded with those images every day, so to say that the association is immature or imply that it isn't normal is actually insular thinking on your part.

Of course you're going to think would they ever grow up, and you see the association as immature, but I think you have it backwards if you imagine your attitude to the association between nudity and sexuality is normal, and your students attitudes isn't perfectly normal.

Full disclosure - I'm not a teacher! A lot of artists specialise in nude bodywork to the point that 99% of their work is nude-related. I'm not trying to tell you what is or is not representative.

I made two claims in my first post: it exists; and it's childish. ANd I stand by both claims.

Laphroaig52

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Be honest, who else had to google "Venus of Willendorf"?

I did.
I would.

Vincent Vega

Jaysus. Whatever about her being nude I think we can all agree she went a bit overboard with the cornrows.

pleas advice

*prudishness

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Some pair on that lass.

Mmmm, Venus of Willendorf, her sweet, sweet, can-