Riddle me this..............

[LibraryLady]

--Inspired by the weird news thread out of the UK..............

Why is it OK to create a statue of a female's private parts and put it in a public place and call it art, but it would never be acceptable to put a large statue of a man's private parts in a public place?

(i am recalling an episode of Raymond also)

Personally, I don't care to see a statue of either.

[PlanoSooner]

some things called art, aren't

a crucifix in urine? art? some say so.

[LibraryLady]

Yes, that was obscene, IMO.

[Sangersteve]

,

[LibraryLady]

But David's parts are connected to his body--not just a giant p----- displayed alone.

[Sangersteve]

But David's parts are connected to his body--not just a giant p----- displayed alone.

So you are looking for something a little more substantial than David?

[LibraryLady]

No, my point is that "society" thinks it is acceptable to display a giant vagina, but would not display a giant penis.

That's all...............

[Red Oak]

We have elected a few in the US however.

[Sangersteve]

No, my point is that "society" thinks it is acceptable to display a giant vagina, but would not display a giant penis.

That's all...............

Just funing you about David.

I don't don't think society accepts either one. What I do think is that when you find an "Art" piece that is of a body part or a crucifix in urine, or a performance artist who works in the nude while puffing smoke out of an orifice, you'll also find a democrat artist.

[bodine]

My definition of acceptable art extends to pieces that, given the $$$ and the space, I would display in my home...

Giant private parts of either sex do not fit that definition...