[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.

[thaumasiotes]

>>>> 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’.

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

On the other hand, I feel fairly confident in claiming that women wearing nothing but a sheet that doesn't quite cover their butt are considered sexy in the modern day too.

Would you believe that, say, souvenir postcards of nude Aphrodites sell better than souvenir postcards of Zeus? Why do you think that might be?

If you want to argue that the Venus de Milo is "nonsexual" nudity because it's historical art, you need to deal with its historical significance, which is as a tawdry sex icon.

If you want to argue that the way the Greeks viewed the statue doesn't matter, you need to deal with the way a statue of a naked woman failing to cover herself with a sheet would be viewed in the modern day, which is... as a tawdry sex icon.

[laumars]

Women walk around topless all the time on European beaches.

To be honest I think it’s hypocritical to say women should have their chests covered when men don’t have the same rules.

But we are drifting waaaay off topic now.

[code_duck]

The issue here is the distinction between art that depicts nudity (with or without eroticism) and pornography. This is the sort of thing that has been discussed at great length by the Supreme Court, and I doubt if we’re going to make any headway debating it here. I would suggest referring to historical legal discussions.