It was removed b/c of the pubic hair showing. It was removed and replaced with another nude. Are people such prudes that a suggestive portrait can be more shocking to their morals than full nudity?

but certainly not because of the pubic hair. A shave isn't going to turn a four into a ten. lol

and I don't think there are really any limits as to just how prudish people can be,  and Americans about more prudish than anyone in the world, except of course for the Muslims, but those wackos are in a category all of their own.

...this is rough.

-- Modified on 7/8/2014 10:38:24 AM

-- Modified on 7/8/2014 10:39:10 AM

as I have no say so in the matter.

You are being very judgmental yourself.

... and I ain't no prude. Nor do I think there is anything prudish about classifying the painting as pornographic.

... the lady only had a landing strip for her pubic hair. That's NOT the norm!!  

When it comes to The Society of Women Artists 153rd annual exhibition.  

Nothing shows us how human we are than our reactions to the naughty parts.

I like the picture and if the Tate doesn't want it, there's a spot over my bed that is just right for it.  I'd have her any day.

I think it is the way she is holding her legs together and dipping a bit that makes the picture so sexy.

Oh well, degustibus..., and all that jazz.

it's because she appears to be removing a sexually suggestive garment, in a provocative way.

I do, because the woman in the painting is suggesting sex by how the artist painted her in motion.

I put an "e" on the end of Warhol, because this is a fuck board and we're supposed to keep things dirty. So that made it like a blowhole, which has to do with sex through a hole drilled into a wall. The hole is 42" up from the ground, crotch level for most guys with maybe a little stretching or scruntching, with a 2 7/8" diameter, which is pretty much supposed to be wide enough to accommodate most cocks, and if it can't, the logic goes, they can either get it on the street or they don't deserve any.

Looking at this painting, it oozes sexuality. Not only sexuality, but dirty, oily, free sexuality. Another artist will pick up on it.

You are one sick puppy, honey

Truth is stranger than fiction.

I think she would do well as a Lois replacement....don't you?

Just as I prefer the term sex-for-pay to prostitution.

Both P words originally connoted things that were perjorative, and came to be associated with eroticism in an attempt by a malignant society to demonize sexuality.

So to answer your question:  I find the picture very erotic, and also very talented.  It maketh me have a boner, in other words.

(By the way, did anyone catch the rose by her left foot?  What a nice touch.)

It's a sexy painting, and I think it would achieve it's intent with a lot (if not most) most men who walked in a gallery and studiously admired it for a prolonged period (especially of course if no one else was in the room at the time).  Whether folks think it should be displayed is another question...

For example, I consider snuff photos to be pornography, but I can see how some guys get turned on by it, so yes, it is erotic to them (not me).

Same with animal or child porn.