undefined | Better HN

0 pointsthaumasiotes7y ago0 comments

> 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.

0 comments

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’.

thaumasiotesOP7y ago

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_duck7y ago

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.

1 more reply

pmlnr7y ago

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...

1 more reply

laumars7y ago

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 :)

thaumasiotesOP7y ago

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

laumars7y ago

“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.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

code_duck7y ago

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’.

thaumasiotesOP7y ago

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_duck7y ago

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.

1 more reply

pmlnr7y ago

Edit: my comment was wrong, ignore it.

---

1 more reply

laumars7y ago

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 :)

thaumasiotesOP7y ago

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

laumars7y ago

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse