• southsamurai@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    Okay, okay, I can get the internal structures being an unknown.

    But damn, could they not have found someone willing to show the artist their cooch? That’s the one part that you don’t have to cut someone open to know what it looks like. I mean, you can, but it’s totally optional, and much messier.

    Point is, they could have found some way to trick someone into being a model. Like, “hello ma’am, your shoes are unbuttoned”, then run around behind them, flip their skirts up and take a peek at the very least.

    • Etterra@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      Well dissecting corpses was considered sacrilegis because religious people, but it’s possible that they made it that wrong on purpose. Moral sensibilities are arbitrary and irrational, and in a society where they completely trump all things science, sometimes you got to make some compromises to squeak past the censorship. Honestly it’s not that different today, just in different places.

      • southsamurai@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        I’m not sure what dissection of bodies has to do with drawing external genitalia, but yeah, I suppose social mores would explain away the lack of having seen genitals, and/or drawing them badly.