There's probably a lot to say about modern feminism that isn't pleasant. The majority of it is most likely unpleasant. However, I never thought people would actually bring up this one topic because it seemed even too ludicrous for them to criticise.

Have we heard about the "male gaze?" You know, the one that males, the ones with the Y chromosome, exert to visually process stimuli?

Yup, imagine that but make it toxic. Which in the feminist dictionary means: exclusively perceives boobs and butts. To figure out how they came to this conclusion in itself does not require mental gymnastics. Men are more visual than women. They find garters, stockings, and Jessica Rabbit-esque stuff generally hot.

Why this toxicity would expand to art and out of all the subjects nudes as an artist I fail to see. Especially after hearing the oppressive undertones of the phrase itself—that male artists would somehow disgrace women's bodies with their nasty, brazen eyes.

First of all... what? Second of all, looking has never constituted as anything else but admiring something from far away. Looking or thinking does not equal doing. If it did ,none of us would go to a good place after we die, trust me.

Women were given far less rights for so long, they were pushed into the background as properties of a man. However, in art, these rules didn't apply. Artists saw this, saw that just because society thinks women are lesser than they are, they possess a changeableness in nature that should be revealed and celebrated. When women were truly oppressed, art was a place, mainly talking about paintings here, where their true nature was displayed. They weren't the property of men. They were conquerors, warriors, goddesses, and queens.

If you just look, there are so many beautiful works that have nothing to do with women being inferior.

The Birth of Venus

Alexandre Cabanel

Yes, it's female but it's a goddess, too. Nudity communicates so much more than sexual appeal. It's innocence and purity, here it/s the beginning of her life. If one looks at the colours, the smoothness of the shades, the pose, the way she is barely awake or the texture of her hair, one does not think of anything violent or dirty. Clearly, it wasn't only about boobs and butts. One does not paint something to appear so delicate that one considers a subject of hate or thinks of as prey.

There's not a single hint of oppression or her being inferior. She's the biggest figure in the painting. Cabanel's many paintings depict mythical or historical figures and many of them women in the best possible light. From Cleopatra to Circe the sorceress, he had painted them, and had they shown some skin, by looking at any one wouldn't think he aimed to get extremely horny while painting.

Nudity is a way to explore emotions, vulnerability, or just to revel in the beauty of the human body. If any female said that they did not like when a super jacked guy was doing pull-ups in the gym, they were lying. Humans are pretty remarkable specimens and are to be admired. The best way to do it is sometimes without clothes. And there's nothing wrong with that.

Clearly whoever wrote the article that sparked my train of thought has never been to a life drawing class ever. You know, with one of those live, nude models? I can tell you there's like three seconds of awkwardness and then that's not even a person standing in the ring of canvases but a statue. It's nothing anyone sexualizes. It's lines and shades, and highlights, greys and blacks, curves and edges. Nothing more than a very detailed stick figure.