[laumars]

I think the point of that is to distinguish between stuff that is nudity but not of a sexual nature (like Aphrodite of Milos[1]) from stuff that could be deemed as corrupting young kids? But I’m guessing there.

As a European I do think the Americans get far to uptight about nudity. There’s nothing inherently wrong with nakedness, it’s not automatically sexual. Yet I’m constantly amazed how much casual violence is in family TV (Simpson’s, Tom and Jerry, etc). I find it weird that cutting a persons limbs off is more acceptable than a naked form. But I guess that’s a cultural thing.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_de_Milo

[thaumasiotes]

> nudity but not of a sexual nature (like Aphrodite of Milos)

Pretty strange to call this "nudity, but not of a sexual nature".

She is literally the incarnation of the concept of sex.

[code_duck]

I think what they would say is that the statue was not created nor are photos provided with an aim to ‘appeal to a prurient interest’.

[thaumasiotes]

It would be hard to defend that claim as to the creation of the statue.

It's easier as to the provision of photos today, but opinions still vary.

[code_duck]

I have no doubt whatsoever that historians could easily demonstrate that the statue was not created as a form of pornography. It’s a religious icon.

[thaumasiotes]

I'll quote from Greek Religion: Archaic and Classical ( https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00EU96DSK/ )

(I'm pulling text from subchapter III.2.7, "Aphrodite", but my pulls are not necessarily contiguous in the original.)

> Aphrodite's sphere of activity is immediately and sensibly apparent: the joyous consummation of sexuality. Aphrodisia, aphrodisiazein as a verb, denotes quite simply the act of love, and in the Odyssey, the name of the goddess is already used in the same sense.

> However impious the apotheosis of sexuality may seem in light of the Christian tradition, modern sensibility can nevertheless also appreciate how in the experience of love the loved one and indeed the whole world appears transfigured and joyously intensified, making all else seem insignificant: a tremendous power is revealed, a great deity.

> Behind the figure of Aphrodite there clearly stands the ancient Semitic Goddess of love, Ishtar-Astarte [...the text lists many correspondences between the two deities...] In the process of transmission from East to West a part was probably played by frontal representations of the naked goddess

> Unabashed acceptance of sexuality is, however, not a matter of course even in Greece.

> In the iconography, the naked oriental figure was supplanted as early as the first half of the seventh century by the normal representation of the goddess [emphasis added] with long, sumptuous robes and the high crown of the goddess, polos. Fine attire is Aphrodite's specialty, most notably necklaces and occasionally brightly colored robes intended to give an oriental effect.

> It was not until about 340 that the statue of a naked Aphrodite apparently preparing to take a bath was created for the sanctuary in Cnidos by Praxiteles; for centuries this figure remained the most renowned representation of the goddess of love, the embodiment of all womanly charms. The statue was displayed in the round so that it could be admired from all sides; Greek sources suggest that it excited more voyeurism than piety.

That is the tradition into which the Venus de Milo falls. Let me suggest to you that your ideas of how people can view their religious icons are rather more restricted than historical practice would justify. We're talking about a statue showing the apotheosis of sexuality flaunting her supernatural sex appeal.

Sexual content was routine even outside the context of Aphrodite specifically. For example:

> At the doors of the anaktoron [in Samothrace] two bronze statues of ithyphallic [priapic] Hermes were to be seen. Originally these could have been just phallic boundary markers, but the mythical explanation was that Hermes had got into this state of arousal because he beheld Persephone.

(Subchapter VI.1.3, "The Kabeiroi and Samothrace")

EDIT:

From Wikipedia, on the Aphrodite of Cnidos:

> The statue [...] was so lifelike that it even aroused men sexually, as witnessed by the tradition that a young man broke into the temple at night and attempted to copulate with the statue, leaving a stain on it.

[laumars]

There was a lot that happened in Ancient Greece that doesn’t happen now. If your entire point about it being sexual is based on the sensibilities of a population 2000 years ago then I suggest perhaps your view of the world needs an update. Eg Things like blood sports are now widely disliked and we no longer believe in multiple in Greek gods nor that the sun is pulled up via chariot.

[pmlnr]

Edit: my comment was wrong, ignore it.

---

You need to get a bit more in touch with history; that statue has nothing to do with "sexually gratifying". It was in the days when minos culture fashion looked like this: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=minos+culture+fashion&t=ffab&iax=i...

[thaumasiotes]

> It was in the days when minos culture fashion looked like this

The Minoan culture is more or less contemporaneous with the Mycenaean Greeks who fell in the 12th century BC, ushering in the Greek Dark Age which lasted about 400 years.

Wikipedia dates the Venus de Milo to the late second century BC. Aphrodite is not even attested in Mycenaean records.

You're off by over a thousand years.

As such, I'll respectfully reject your suggestion that I need to get more in touch with history.

[pmlnr]

My memory tricked me. You are correct. I'm sorry.

[laumars]

The point being that is art, not pornography.

Re the people who voted me down, I’m curious if you’ve done so because you consider that statue porn or because you don’t consider it art? Are you able to elaborate please :)

[thaumasiotes]

The statue is overt sexual content. See my sidethread comment, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18745277 .

[laumars]

“Overt sexual content”? She’s just stood there. That’s not a sexual pose, she’s not engaging in sex. Even if I take your point about the figure it depicts, it’s about as subtle a sexual icon as it gets.

[thaumasiotes]

She's just standing there... naked. That is not the norm for a statue of Aphrodite. It derives from the tradition of the nude Aphrodite of Knidos, which... made huge waves for titillation value:

> According to an account by Pliny the Elder, Praxiteles sculpted both a nude statue and a draped statue of Aphrodite. The city of Kos purchased the draped statue, because they felt the nude version was indecent and reflected poorly on their city, while the city of Knidos purchased the nude statue.

> The statue [...] was so lifelike that it even aroused men sexually, as witnessed by the tradition that a young man broke into the temple at night and attempted to copulate with the statue, leaving a stain on it.

( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphrodite_of_Knidos )

Just how strongly can we connect the Venus de Milo to the Aphrodite of Knidos? Well, it's a naked Aphrodite in a similar pose. Similar enough that it was originally attributed to Praxiteles. Aphrodite of Knidos is just standing there too, about to take a bath.

Imagine me posting a photo to Facebook showing a woman caught in the act of getting into her bathtub. She's not engaging in sex! Then again, videos of this exact subject matter are common on porn sites.

Imagine arguing that a still of Marilyn Monroe's dress getting blown up around her hips is about art, and not about sexual titillation.

[laumars]

Re the bath tub example, that’s an interesting example because it’s quite common to have pictures of children playing in the bath or at the beach and obviously that’s not porn. We also have communal changing rooms in gyms and some swimming pools. Some Northern European countries have communal steam rooms where the etiquette is full nudity; and that’s not a sexual thing either (well, not to anyone who actually uses them anyway). There are nudist colonies and all sorts. Again they aren’t a sexual thing. What about breastfeeding? Women should have to hide away in toilets to feed their babies and there’s nothing sexual about feeding a child.

Thus the issue is really more of sensibilities than anything. Nudity isn’t a big thing in Europe like it is in the US. It’s common for women to walk the beaches topless; and frankly they should be allowed to since it’s perfectly natural and men do it too. The whole “the statue is topless so it’s sexually explicit” comment is really weird to read in the context of European attitudes because we differentiate between nudity and sex (as the earlier examples demonstrate). Which is probably also why America needs the “free the nipple” (and similar) campaign if people like yourself consider any form of nudity to be sexually explicit regardless of context. I mean we are all born naked - it’s so weird to read someone say that the form we are born in is indesent and worse imagery than violence. I just can’t fathom that logic. Sorry :-/

[distances]

> As a European I do think the Americans get far to uptight about nudity. There’s nothing inherently wrong with nakedness, it’s not automatically sexual. Yet I’m constantly amazed how much casual violence is in family TV (Simpson’s, Tom and Jerry, etc).

And random acts of violence in even light comedy shows that shun everything sexual. Really grates me when they're celebrated instead of prosecuted for an assault.

[rdiddly]

Not only is nudity not automatically sexual, sex is not automatically (or even remotely) evil. It's good and wholesome.