When does Renaissance sculpture become "pornography"? Discuss!

[Diogenes]

I'm not sure if you're deliberately missing the point, or if you're just a moron.

[Starlight]

Given the long history of painting being repainted to add fig leaves and strips of cloth.... That below is the actual fig leaf that has been at various time strategically attached to Michelangelo's David

He should feel lucky his just got a fig leaf and not a snip-snip like most of the statues in the Vatican did.

Perhaps they should use that as their motto, and go into the transgender operations healthcare market? "The Vatican: The biggest performers of bottom surgeries since 1857"

[Diogenes]

He should feel lucky his just got a fig leaf and not a snip-snip like most of the statues in the Vatican did.

Perhaps they should use that as their motto, and go into the transgender operations healthcare market? "The Vatican: The biggest performers of bottom surgeries since 1857"

In the ancient worlds, eunuchs notably held great power and there's nothing to suggest they considered themselves "transgender". In a more modern time period, becoming a castrato didn't have any any current "transgender" implications either. Pure anachronism.

[Starlight]

In the ancient worlds, eunuchs notably held great power and there's nothing to suggest they considered themselves "transgender". In a more modern time period, becoming a castrato didn't have any any current "transgender" implications either. Pure anachronism.

You seem to be slightly changing topics. I was just noting that the Vatican has a lot of statues with their manhood cut off, cos a pope a while back thought nude artwork was inappropriate. I was not suggesting it was a transgender act, merely that it amusingly links to modern transgenderism in the sense of cutting off of the genitalia.

Eunuchs are often considered a 3rd gender by historical scholars. There are plenty of ancient texts that show that their societies thought of them outside the normal 2 genders. So I would generally tend to say that becoming a eunuch was a gender transition in those societies, just not a male to female one.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Should classic children's books get banned like six Dr. Seuss books^[1] after claims of "racist and hurtful" imagery?

Not in my opinion. Nor do I think the works of Roald Dahl need redacting as has recently been reported.

Many years ago the Enid Blyton Noddy books were expurgated to remove the "wicked Golliwogs" [can I type that word?] and likewise W E Johns Biggles books had some very offensive language removed

Should those works have been changed? I remain of the opinion they should not. I have the same view of Dr Bowdler's Shakespeare "reworkings".

Being decidedly cynical one might opine that redacted/reworked versions of well known texts are nothing but a way for publishers to make more money.

Indeed as public sensibilities [or perceived public sensibilities] change publishers can rework the same text over and over again to reflect those changing attitudes. As Private Eye would note "Triples all round"

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I'm not sure if you're deliberately missing the point, or if you're just a moron.

I am simply noting your rather prudish attitude towards nudity.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Given the long history of painting being repainted to add fig leaves and strips of cloth....


I'll hazard a guess at... a heck of a lot longer than recently, stretching back into the Renaissance itself.

Yet earlier religious imagery was less guarded. In the sixth century mosaic of Christ's baptism in the Arian Baptistry at Ravenna his genitalia are visible.

And Michelangelo's "draft" of The Risen Christ - recently rediscovered - has him full frontal and nude. The later work [now in the Church of Santa Maria sopra Minerva in Rome] had a bronze loincloth added a few years later! That second sculpture is the very essence of "muscular" Christianity! Just look at those thighs, arms, and that "six pack".



And let us not forget the numerous paintings of the Madonna and Child with the baby's genitalia on full display.

[rogue06]

You seem to be slightly changing topics. I was just noting that the Vatican has a lot of statues with their manhood cut off, cos a pope a while back thought nude artwork was inappropriate. I was not suggesting it was a transgender act, merely that it amusingly links to modern transgenderism in the sense of cutting off of the genitalia.

What percent of "transwomen" actually go as far as to have their genitals removed? It looks to be a tiny fraction

In 2016, a meta-analysis of 27 studies estimated a rate of approx 10 per 100,000 of the population (0.01%) have a transgender diagnosis and/or surgical or hormonal treatment. In contrast 355 per 100,000 of the population(0.35%) self-identity as transgender. This means only 2.8% of the transgender community is undergoing any gender-affirming treatment with the vast majority 97.2% simply self-identity with no modifications to their sexed body whatsoever.

No one knows for sure how many transwomen keep their penis, but there are fewer than 10 surgeons in the UK who can undertake the relevant operation. Even if they each performed one operation every single day this would still only represent an absolute maximum of 3,500 surgeries each year. The actual number performed is likely to be very much smaller than this. An estimate of just a few hundred operations each year would not be unreasonable.

There is also data available from the US HERE showing that genital surgery is very rare. In this study (sampling 20% of all outpatient hospital discharges in the US) there were only a few hundred genital surgeries performed each year. (205 in 2012, 250 in 2013, 345 in 2014). This suggests that between 1000-2000 genital surgeries were performed across the whole of the US each. If the trans community in the US represents 1% of the US population this means we’d expect there to be in the region of 3 million people identifying as trans in the US. This means less than 0.1% of the trans community undergoes genital surgery each year supporting our conclusion that the vast majority of males who identify as women retain their penis.

With such a tiny percent of trans who actually do this it doesn't seem logical to equate the practice with trans behavior particularly when you consider that it wasn't usually exactly the choice of those who were turned into eunuchs. That decision was usually made by others.

Eunuchs are often considered a 3rd gender by historical scholars. There are plenty of ancient texts that show that their societies thought of them outside the normal 2 genders. So I would generally tend to say that becoming a eunuch was a gender transition in those societies, just not a male to female one.

That some historians now seek to rewrite history to put it in accord with the latest fad in thinking is pretty sad. About the only eunuchs that I see who were even close to being regarded that way is a specific group in India. Kathryn M. Ringrose, who wrote what is considered the definitive book on eunuchs in the Byzantine Empire, and in spite of the name of her book (The Perfect Servant: Eunuchs and the Social Construction of Gender in Byzantium) scoffs at the notion that they were see as a "third sex" rightfully seeing that as projecting modern beliefs into the past and stating that procreation was considered to be the defining gender characteristic, not genitalia.

[rogue06]

Yet earlier religious imagery was less guarded. In the sixth century mosaic of Christ's baptism in the Arian Baptistry at Ravenna his genitalia are visible.

And Michelangelo's "draft" of The Risen Christ - recently rediscovered - has him full frontal and nude. The later work [now in the Church of Santa Maria sopra Minerva in Rome] had a bronze loincloth added a few years later! That second sculpture is the very essence of "muscular" Christianity! Just look at those thighs, arms, and that "six pack".



And let us not forget the numerous paintings of the Madonna and Child with the baby's genitalia on full display.

There hardly would have been a "need" to cover paintings and statues if they weren't exposing anything

But I guess thanks for essentially repeating what I said.

[Diogenes]

Yet earlier religious imagery was less guarded. In the sixth century mosaic of Christ's baptism in the Arian Baptistry at Ravenna his genitalia are visible.

And Michelangelo's "draft" of The Risen Christ - recently rediscovered - has him full frontal and nude. The later work [now in the Church of Santa Maria sopra Minerva in Rome] had a bronze loincloth added a few years later! That second sculpture is the very essence of "muscular" Christianity! Just look at those thighs, arms, and that "six pack".



And let us not forget the numerous paintings of the Madonna and Child with the baby's genitalia on full display.

Nice to see "Duck Duck Go" image data

Christ is in waist deep water in the Arian Baptistry mosaic. You seem extremely fixated on genitalia in art.

[Diogenes]

That some historians now seek to rewrite history to put it in accord with the latest fad in thinking is pretty sad. About the only eunuchs that I see who were even close to being regarded that way is a specific group in India. Kathryn M. Ringrose, who wrote what is considered the definitive book on eunuchs in the Byzantine Empire, and in spite of the name of her book (The Perfect Servant: Eunuchs and the Social Construction of Gender in Byzantium) scoffs at the notion that they were see as a "third sex" rightfully seeing that as projecting modern beliefs into the past and stating that procreation was considered to be the defining gender characteristic, not genitalia.

When your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

[Starlight]

Rogue your post seems rather confused. Were you actually responding to what I was actually saying?

What percent of "transwomen" actually go as far as to have their genitals removed?

Ok? Not relevant to anything I said as far as I can see.

That some historians now seek to rewrite history to put it in accord with the latest fad in thinking is pretty sad. About the only eunuchs that I see who were even close to being regarded that way is a specific group in India. Kathryn M. Ringrose, who wrote what is considered the definitive book on eunuchs in the Byzantine Empire, and in spite of the name of her book (The Perfect Servant: Eunuchs and the Social Construction of Gender in Byzantium) scoffs at the notion that they were see as a "third sex" rightfully seeing that as projecting modern beliefs into the past and stating that procreation was considered to be the defining gender characteristic, not genitalia.

I don't understand what point you think you are making here. That publishers blurb says:

Kathryn Ringrose uses the modern concept of gender as a social construct to identify eunuchs as a distinct gender

Eunuchs were a 3rd gender. It's not exactly subtle if you look at the historical texts.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Nice to see "Duck Duck Go" image data

Christ is in waist deep water in the Arian Baptistry mosaic. You seem extremely fixated on genitalia in art.

The point being made is that adult [and particularly male] genitalia [which seem to be the preoccupation of some here] were not considered to be indecent/obscene or pornographic.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

So regarding a classic sculpture as pornography does not characterise a person as a "repressed prig"




That contradicts the prior statement that rather humorously lacks a comma. Shall we go over the differences between the sentences "Let's eat grandma." and "Let's eat, grandma." ?




How else would you describe humans having sexual relations with non-human animals and their depictions?

Whenever the topics of nudity, the human body, and/or sex are raised you have a tendency to make comments pertaining to live sex ed lessons, various perverse practices, and [often] eunuchs.

Yu have not followed the alleged behaviour of Origen have you?.

[Diogenes]

The point being made is that adult [and particularly male] genitalia [which seem to be the preoccupation of some here] were not considered to be indecent/obscene or pornographic.

Because such nudity was taken within the context of heroic nudity and within a context of Humanism. I don't expect some random parent to understand those topics. I doubt sixth graders would understand heroic nudity either so the significance of nudity in classical or Renaissance would be lost and would be futile educationally. Infant nudity would be different but even nude depictions of the Christ Child, especially without a halo, would fall within Humanism as it focuses on Christ's humanity and detracts from His divinity. I doubt sixth graders could appreciate the ideology behind these works, much less their parents.