My Florence (5): Women’s Secret
I was saying in the last post that one of the problems I am struggling with in the case of statues from the Roman and Greek antiquity is that while men’s penises are extremely well represented, the depiction of women’s vulvae is strikingly missing: I was not able to find any such representation in Florence’s statues. Since breasts are of course very well represented, it is strange that at the imaginary level they are more important than the vulvae. If for the Roman and Greek imaginary man’s sexuality was represented by his penis, woman’s sexuality was represented by breasts but not by the vulva.
In some cases, the lack of depiction directly transforms itself in prohibition:
But this was the only case. In rest, the rule is ‘breasts are fine, vulvae are not’. Furthermore, the interesting thing is that there is no case of very big breasts: all the instances I was able to photo depicted quite small breasts:
Two different cases require special attention. The first shows woman’s sexuality as extremely important – but not through depicting the vulva, but on the contrary through multiplying the pair of breasts:
The second case is coming from our days, and shows that in order to emphasize the importance of a piece of cloth, sexuality is extremely important – but as in the Roman and Greek days, women’s sexuality is, again, represented only by breasts:
Point & shoot camera (Nikon Coolpix L100) & photos worked in Gimp.