Lol, no I meant that in fine art, particularly sculpture, nude male genitalia tend to be quite explicit (unless covered by a fig leaf or some other convenient device), but not explicitly depicted in the case of nude female subjects.
And you should NEVER forget your hotel room key! Especially when you are naked. LOL!
Lol - of course - but I was looking for a a really funny illustration, in which you saw these too explicit parts covered with a hat by some sanctimonious teacher in a museum.
But at least, there's Mr. Bean - lol.
Guess this "little man" in Belgium's capital - sometimes he needs to be "covered" too:
Wait a minute!
If the verb in the bar was an "it," what on Earth did it conjugate with?
Lol - they didn't tell.
"It" is "neuter" ...
Yes, exactly, like an anatomically incorrect doll?
Lol - true; former censorship seems to survive - lol - especially with dolls.
Lol, yes, 'unmentionable' was/is also undepictable, at least in these applications.
Fine art was something else of course, although female modesty tended to be protected more than male.
Lol - "female modesty tended to be protected more than male" ? Wasn't it rather that "male prerogatives tended to be protected more than female" ?
By the way, I found the full story of Mr. Bean's "Room 426" - lol:
@ Marianne:
Lol, no I meant that in fine art, particularly sculpture, nude male genitalia tend to be quite explicit (unless covered by a fig leaf or some other convenient device), but not explicitly depicted in the case of nude female subjects.
And you should NEVER forget your hotel room key! Especially when you are naked. LOL!
Lol - of course - but I was looking for a a really funny illustration, in which you saw these too explicit parts covered with a hat by some sanctimonious teacher in a museum.
But at least, there's Mr. Bean - lol.
Guess this "little man" in Belgium's capital - sometimes he needs to be "covered" too:
or, according to Busch:
http://gutenberg.spiegel.de/buch/tobias-knopp-4169/37