Another nude sports figure pointlessly objectified on a magazine cover

[TreasonousBastard]

53. Have you ever seen Roman household statuary? It's almost...

entirely erotic, from what I've seen in exhibitions and European museums. I was amazed by the amount of phallic statuary, presumably having something to do with the erectoral gods. Plenty of artistic screwing going on, though, and undoubtedly plenty more real screwing going on in those baths.

The only real differences I see between now and then are technical-- they didn't have video. I have no doubt if they did porn would have been bigger than it is today.

As far as women are concerned, it sounds like you are extending the definition to include simply pictures of naked women, or even women in suggestive poses. Like Marilyn Monroe in the 60's? Betty Page earlier? Any Hollywood glamor shots? And, speaking of glamor shots, it was always the women sexualized. Ever see Bogart or the Duke in shorts or swim suits. Why is that?

Again, would it be worthwhile explaining how and why women seem to be "commercial goods"? I am curious how we've let studies of the male body in art kind of drift away. Perhaps simply because women wouldn't pay for pictures of skimpily dressed males? There is a market for naked women, but little for naked men, and that does seem a bit odd. There is some market among gay men, although I don't know how big it is, but I have no idea if lesbians have any interest in ogling naked women. If there isn't, it might indicate the already assumed fundamental difference between the sexes in how they deal with visual stimulation.