In the Art History courses I’ve taken, they usually talk about nudity in the realm of “it represents fertility” or something like that. Yeah sure… Venus of Urbino is totally about “fertility” and she’s definitely not touching herself for any other reason.
The pose was copied from Dresden Venus. Where it’s much more obvious that she’s touching herself. Likely whoever commissioned it requested her to be like that.
Art History courses I’ve taken seem to gloss over the fact that most famous artwork is commissioned. The patrons of 1000 years ago are the same as the patrons of today. They’re down bad and want titties & ass.
Maybe in 1000 years ahegao catgirls will “represent fertility”
I’ve literally seen historical tentacle porn prints in an Asian art museum. It is wild.
Citations please, for research of course.
I tried to find it, but I’m not in a good position up search right now lol. However! I believe I saw it in San Francisco’s Asian Art Museum. Maybe another, slightly less compromised Lemming can source it, haha.
Fun fact: That’s the same artist as the famous The Great Wave off Kanagawa painting.
There’s probably more, but that’s certainly one.
The same museum also has more soft core erotica art from that era.
Little man surrounded by powerful, beautiful women. This is an early version of that Piper Perri meme.
There’s no way cavemen weren’t the first people having bukakke gangbangs.
See also: Wonder Woman and bondage starting in 1941.
