I think that most people would agree that any sexual act should be consensual, and there is some disagreement over what constitutes a sexual act. I think the exposure of an erect penis is a sexual act. If I open a porn mag or visit a museum of erotica I consent to that act. I would disagree that I do so by wandering into a museum, although that may be something that you consider to be my bad, not the museum’s. I would say that you reflected that consensual issue by apologising for not leaving a warning on your LJ as to the content of the picture.
We can handle multi obscene ideas of forbidden Badsex; we just can't bear to look at a facsimile of a member of the body looking ready for its use. No straps, no kinks, no trauma, no victim, but we just can't do it. How lost in mind games can we get? I’m not sure what you mean by this.
Are you saying that there is a link between sex pests and the depictions of rampant sexuality in art?
Not directly, but I think I’ve covered this point above.
You mentioned women with their juices running down their legs; Sheelagh-Na-Gigs have been found everywhere, open eager vaginas gaping at the watcher;
Ew!
Are there more cases of nymphomania where they are found?
I have no idea, but if they are what I think they are then they were intended to provoke an increase in shagging. Nymphomania as a disorder has, I believe, very little to do with sex, other than that is the way it manifests itself.
Surely the sex pest doesn't need to spend 6 quid (approximate price of the Peggy G collection) to get his rocks off - he can buy a top shelf mag for much less and do it.
I’m not suggesting for a minute that anyone is going to go into the museum to toss over the sculpture!
If he's going to jizz down some poor girl's back, he is surely more likely to have done it c/o Crack Hustlers Weekly than Angel of the City. Or just pay his TV licence and watch East Enders.
Surely, if art is going to be anything other than a collection of pretty things - also very nice - it has to reflect the human condition. Sex and ecstasy is a huge part of that condition, as is the ugly stuff. Art can perhaps show us the heights we can aspire to, the depths we can reach, but one thing it cannot be is a barometer of public decency, not least cos Art is supposed to remain eternal,* and social mores change all the time. Decency isn't the point. There's a lot of great artists, composers and writers who were s**theads/perverts/freaks. We can make art respectable and watch it die on our Habitat walls.
I take your point. Art should not be a barometer of public decency – but perhaps the way in which it is displayed should be. I don’t know. Personally I find the statue distasteful – not offensive, just distasteful.
It goes without saying that I am anti-censorship!
I shall think on this and see if I can come up with a situation in which you’d be pro-censorship. That can be my challenge for the rest of the week!
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
zaluzianskya and ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
skylark_photos
no subject
Date: 2004-10-28 03:05 pm (UTC)We can handle multi obscene ideas of forbidden Badsex; we just can't bear to look at a facsimile of a member of the body looking ready for its use. No straps, no kinks, no trauma, no victim, but we just can't do it. How lost in mind games can we get?
I’m not sure what you mean by this.
Are you saying that there is a link between sex pests and the depictions of rampant sexuality in art?
Not directly, but I think I’ve covered this point above.
You mentioned women with their juices running down their legs; Sheelagh-Na-Gigs have been found everywhere, open eager vaginas gaping at the watcher;
Ew!
Are there more cases of nymphomania where they are found?
I have no idea, but if they are what I think they are then they were intended to provoke an increase in shagging. Nymphomania as a disorder has, I believe, very little to do with sex, other than that is the way it manifests itself.
Surely the sex pest doesn't need to spend 6 quid (approximate price of the Peggy G collection) to get his rocks off - he can buy a top shelf mag for much less and do it.
I’m not suggesting for a minute that anyone is going to go into the museum to toss over the sculpture!
If he's going to jizz down some poor girl's back, he is surely more likely to have done it c/o Crack Hustlers Weekly than Angel of the City. Or just pay his TV licence and watch East Enders.
Surely, if art is going to be anything other than a collection of pretty things - also very nice - it has to reflect the human condition. Sex and ecstasy is a huge part of that condition, as is the ugly stuff. Art can perhaps show us the heights we can aspire to, the depths we can reach, but one thing it cannot be is a barometer of public decency, not least cos Art is supposed to remain eternal,* and social mores change all the time. Decency isn't the point. There's a lot of great artists, composers and writers who were s**theads/perverts/freaks. We can make art respectable and watch it die on our Habitat walls.
I take your point. Art should not be a barometer of public decency – but perhaps the way in which it is displayed should be. I don’t know. Personally I find the statue distasteful – not offensive, just distasteful.
It goes without saying that I am anti-censorship!
I shall think on this and see if I can come up with a situation in which you’d be pro-censorship. That can be my challenge for the rest of the week!