I have never noticed this but you're absolutely correct. I wonder if it has anything to do with the move away from fertility cults to more masculine dominated religion? Depicting a woman without sex organs is certainly one way to downplay the importance of childbirth.
I was on IG and came across a reel from a waxing clinic where the staff held a piece of cake covered in snipped off bits of hair. They asked the viewer “would you eat this? Then neither would your man! Come in now for discounted laser treatment” The angle then pans to another woman holding a terrrrrrrifying laser tool.
I legit had to put my phone down and go for a walk to clear my head. Women are taught from birth to hate the look of their genitals, the very mechanisms through which every single human life has been brought into the world. Whether it’s classical art or Instagram reels, there’s a real policing of skin and winkles and folds and hair and odour.
You always manage to paint yourselves as the victim don't you? Despite having a plethora of undeserved systemic privileges you find something completely irrelevant and have to take a walk because of your "intense suffering."
The sense of delusional entitlement and narcissisism is off the charts. If nobody wants to give you oral sex, perhaps you should indeed make yourself look better.
lol ‘you always paint yourselves as the victim don’t you? despite having a plethora of undeserved systemic privileges’ james unironically said to the woman as he painted himself as a victim, despite having a plethora of undeserved systemic privileges afforded to him by his white male skin.
The depiction of the miniscule penis, was apparently to distance Romans & Greeks from the "Barbarians", it was political as much as artistic. The absence of female genitalia may have the same origins. Regardless, artists have to tow the line and abide by the prevailing moral climate, to get commissions and payment, so are rarely explicit in their public works.
Wondered for sometime about the same thing. My guess was that you can’t really see vulva if a woman doesn’t shave, which I imagine was and still is the majority of women , so artists had to approximate how it should look like without pubic hair. So in the end it returns to good old gender neutral question of why artists hate body hair (my favorite explanation is that it is just hard to depict hair and everyone just agreed to ditch them and call it a day)
Oddly, that's something I've always wondered about as well. I mean, even that dude who hangs at the Academia has got his, sadly miniscule, junk.
If women are supposed to be the epitome of lush beauty, why delete any part of them (much less that part). How can you be a deity of erotic love and fertility when you're lacking certain, er, qualifications...
Another thing that confuses me is: What's with the seeming pandemic of headless/armlessness?
When exactly in history did the effacement occur? I have seen neolithic "venus" with quite a distinctive labidinal cleft as well as the "sheela na gig" here in ireland. So at what point did the vulva disappear in the statuary?Are we are looking at some kind of reproduction from an original more accurate model?I find it hard to believe that the priappic greeks would forget to compensate for the distaff organ. If women in general, were so ohysically repulsive to them, why bother sculpting the female body at all? Truth is complicated and this issue, if you want actual resolution, needs more research and an accurate timeline.
Classical Greek statuary & paintings of men typically display tiny, pre-pubescent genitalia. Romans, on the other hand, were not so constrained, and appear to have insisted on genitalia conforming to the age of their subjects.
Now I’m wondering how much this extended into paintings, especially during the Renaissance and Neoclassical periods. I shall go look now. Very curious.
Interesting piece. I wonder if some of the less artistic and more pornographic art of the era is a contrast? It makes me think of how this era depicted small penises as it was seen as more artistic and not pornographic but there is pornographic art of the era with large, erect phalluses.
I’m a digital artist and on the host website “naked art ladies” are forbidden. Men it’s ok in art. But sculpture or painting, even ancient, of ladies are strictly forbidden. Yep digital art in 2025. I can’t upload any art of women’s nude but men are fine tho. 🤔
I am in LOVE with this article, and thank you so much for mentioning me it truly means the world!!❤️❤️❤️ It really is wild to think about all those ancient sculptors meticulously carving coiffed pubes and realistic penises on male figures, but balking at even a SUGGESTION of female genitalia. I've heard that often male genitalia was depicted as a sign of the divine masculine in greco-roman art, aka, a symbol of order, reason, and control. To carve, label as art, and thus immortalize the female genitalia would be to set up a competitor to male supremacy. The vulva is also incredibly evocative of the female powers of reproduction, a power that can't be denied, and thus threatens the solitary power of the penis. So many interesting rabbit holes to fall down here 😍
Subscribed! I studied Ancient Greek history, even studied the language, but I never thought before about the Ken-doll situation in female statues. I agree it’s nonsense that sculptors couldn’t have represented female bits - of course they could! They are capable of that kind of detail everywhere else, including male bits!
I have never noticed this but you're absolutely correct. I wonder if it has anything to do with the move away from fertility cults to more masculine dominated religion? Depicting a woman without sex organs is certainly one way to downplay the importance of childbirth.
No, its respect, and you fucking liberals will never understand this
How exactly does this trend or pattern suggest respect? And on the behalf of the artist or the society more broadly?
But that simply ignores the fact that the rest of the statue is nude with pert breasts displayed proudly.
Flaunting nudity is the sign of a child's mind.
And to downplay the importance of femininity. Well, at the same time, there’s plenty of sculptures of men with their genitalia hanging out.
nope, respect, but modern feminists have none for either gender, or tradition
I was on IG and came across a reel from a waxing clinic where the staff held a piece of cake covered in snipped off bits of hair. They asked the viewer “would you eat this? Then neither would your man! Come in now for discounted laser treatment” The angle then pans to another woman holding a terrrrrrrifying laser tool.
I legit had to put my phone down and go for a walk to clear my head. Women are taught from birth to hate the look of their genitals, the very mechanisms through which every single human life has been brought into the world. Whether it’s classical art or Instagram reels, there’s a real policing of skin and winkles and folds and hair and odour.
Oh that is CHILLING. So depressing but so typical. ❤️🩹❤️🩹 Bonus points when it intersects with a cash-grab!!!
feminists are absolute retards
You always manage to paint yourselves as the victim don't you? Despite having a plethora of undeserved systemic privileges you find something completely irrelevant and have to take a walk because of your "intense suffering."
The sense of delusional entitlement and narcissisism is off the charts. If nobody wants to give you oral sex, perhaps you should indeed make yourself look better.
Mate who hurt you?
lol ‘you always paint yourselves as the victim don’t you? despite having a plethora of undeserved systemic privileges’ james unironically said to the woman as he painted himself as a victim, despite having a plethora of undeserved systemic privileges afforded to him by his white male skin.
Just so you know, this article made me subscribe! Fantastic headline! Brilliant article.
Oh I’m so glad ! ❣️❣️
Same here! I did smash the subscribe button because I am here for the mix of culture, outrage and humor you display!
The depiction of the miniscule penis, was apparently to distance Romans & Greeks from the "Barbarians", it was political as much as artistic. The absence of female genitalia may have the same origins. Regardless, artists have to tow the line and abide by the prevailing moral climate, to get commissions and payment, so are rarely explicit in their public works.
I had the same thought. The same principles that led to tiny male genitalia are probably in play here too.
Wondered for sometime about the same thing. My guess was that you can’t really see vulva if a woman doesn’t shave, which I imagine was and still is the majority of women , so artists had to approximate how it should look like without pubic hair. So in the end it returns to good old gender neutral question of why artists hate body hair (my favorite explanation is that it is just hard to depict hair and everyone just agreed to ditch them and call it a day)
Oddly, that's something I've always wondered about as well. I mean, even that dude who hangs at the Academia has got his, sadly miniscule, junk.
If women are supposed to be the epitome of lush beauty, why delete any part of them (much less that part). How can you be a deity of erotic love and fertility when you're lacking certain, er, qualifications...
Another thing that confuses me is: What's with the seeming pandemic of headless/armlessness?
Oh, and best headline. Ever.
Could you find any examples of the Sumerian usage?
When exactly in history did the effacement occur? I have seen neolithic "venus" with quite a distinctive labidinal cleft as well as the "sheela na gig" here in ireland. So at what point did the vulva disappear in the statuary?Are we are looking at some kind of reproduction from an original more accurate model?I find it hard to believe that the priappic greeks would forget to compensate for the distaff organ. If women in general, were so ohysically repulsive to them, why bother sculpting the female body at all? Truth is complicated and this issue, if you want actual resolution, needs more research and an accurate timeline.
Classical Greek statuary & paintings of men typically display tiny, pre-pubescent genitalia. Romans, on the other hand, were not so constrained, and appear to have insisted on genitalia conforming to the age of their subjects.
Liberal women are so gross.
Do go on
Hey, look. We found a See You Next Tuesday after all!
The other thing about them is they don’t care what you think because they have lives.
Now I’m wondering how much this extended into paintings, especially during the Renaissance and Neoclassical periods. I shall go look now. Very curious.
Interesting piece. I wonder if some of the less artistic and more pornographic art of the era is a contrast? It makes me think of how this era depicted small penises as it was seen as more artistic and not pornographic but there is pornographic art of the era with large, erect phalluses.
Because the Baphomet transgender kid fuckers who commissioned the works made the artist use males who tucked their junk! We all got bills to pay! 🤣😂🙄
I’m a digital artist and on the host website “naked art ladies” are forbidden. Men it’s ok in art. But sculpture or painting, even ancient, of ladies are strictly forbidden. Yep digital art in 2025. I can’t upload any art of women’s nude but men are fine tho. 🤔
I am in LOVE with this article, and thank you so much for mentioning me it truly means the world!!❤️❤️❤️ It really is wild to think about all those ancient sculptors meticulously carving coiffed pubes and realistic penises on male figures, but balking at even a SUGGESTION of female genitalia. I've heard that often male genitalia was depicted as a sign of the divine masculine in greco-roman art, aka, a symbol of order, reason, and control. To carve, label as art, and thus immortalize the female genitalia would be to set up a competitor to male supremacy. The vulva is also incredibly evocative of the female powers of reproduction, a power that can't be denied, and thus threatens the solitary power of the penis. So many interesting rabbit holes to fall down here 😍
Subscribed! I studied Ancient Greek history, even studied the language, but I never thought before about the Ken-doll situation in female statues. I agree it’s nonsense that sculptors couldn’t have represented female bits - of course they could! They are capable of that kind of detail everywhere else, including male bits!