zlacker

>>Clumsy+(OP)
I find it a bit sad that we've become so Puritan that even art is considered "adult".

>>yosito+74
Nudity and sexual content was always subject to suppression and censorship, it's just that "fine art" got a free exception for nudity for reasons that I've never seen adequately explained but are almost certainly to do with class.

(The nude-but-not-sexual viewpoint is pretty valid, but some of the fine art is definitely sexual once you know the context, and some of it was controversial in its time e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_D%C3%A9jeuner_sur_l%27herbe )

>>pjc50+9i
> Nudity and sexual content was always subject to suppression and censorship

Source? To my reading, this is a decisively late Christian/Puritan perspective on sex and the human body.

>>JumpCr+st
As far as I can tell, every human culture has some taboos about these things. In my readings, I've never heard of a culture where the base state is nudity and this is unremarkable. Even in cultures where we think they're nude, they're still working their own modesty standards. I am reminded how in some traditional New Guinean cultures, the males wear nothing but a gourd to cover the genitalia. But they're very shy without the gourds. Similarly, there isn't a single culture ever documented (to the best of my knowledge) where lovers don't usually seek some degree of privacy.

Of course, exactly what counts as nude (or public lovemaking) and just how draconian the repercussions for transgression are, varies greatly.

>>retrac+GB
Also noteworthy, humans seem to be the only species concerned with privacy of sexual matters.

>>ummwha+VM
Hmm, define privacy.

Some snails mate while hanging down from a tree branch by a thread of slime. That's about as private as a snail can get.