Why the Smooth Mound?

Sat, 03/17/2012 - 08:37
Submitted by Carlin Ross

This is a sculpture by Thomas Brock (1847-1922) entitled "Eve". 

She has a Barbie doll vulva.  I mean there isn't one fold, no clit, no lips, and no hair...just a smooth surface where her genitals should be.  She has a belly button, nipples, quite defined facial features but no vulva.

And we wonder why women don't think their own vulvas are "normal".  Maybe it's because we've never seen one represented in art.  We definitely didn't see a real vulva at school or at church.  Today, young girls can see real vulvas online in porn but they've been surgically enhanced - labia cut and dyed pink for extra cuteness.   

Go to any museum and there are anatomically correct penises on every statue.  I was at the Met for a cocktail reception - not only were there were a ton of penises - but when the sculptures were mounted on platforms the penises were all eye level.  It was like one long dick slapping session. 

No, there wasn't just a smooth mound where their penis should be...the penis was there in all it's glory.

I think it's time for some vulva love.

Editor in Chief & Keeper of All Things Betty Dodson

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

female sculpture

Sat, 03/17/2012 - 19:06
someguy25 (not verified)

The Japanese have made anatomically
correct female porcelain figurines for centuries. They are portrayed
sitting in elaborate formal costumes, however, when turned over the
figurines have no undergarments and are extremely lifelike.

Sculpture and ignorance

Sun, 03/18/2012 - 14:55

We can probably thank the Western Christian tradition of erotophobia for the prudishness and ignorance we still struggle with today. There's the well-known story of John Ruskin, the Victorian writer, who was married to a beautiful woman called Effie Gray for five years but could never bring himself to have sex with her because (as she later wrote) "he had imagined women were quite different to what he saw I was, and that the reason he did not make me his Wife was because he was disgusted with my person the first evening 10th April." It seems that Ruskin had only seen statues of women and had no idea that women had body hair and genitals of a particular kind. Sad.

I Agree

Mon, 05/14/2012 - 16:35
Sarah1234 (not verified)

Penises are perfectly acceptable in art museums but any detail on a lady isn't allowed. Maybe the artist really doesn't know what one looks like? If so that's pretty sad. That's why we have Betty to draw vulvas in detail, right? haha thanks for the interesting post and showing me that I'm not the only one who thinks this.

Its always nice when you read

Sat, 05/19/2012 - 06:03
Nate Dunham (not verified)

Its always nice when you read something that is not only informative but entertaining. I have been searching for information about this subject matter for years and yours is the best I have found. I really enjoyed your blog post.  Forex Broker Reviews