>>>> I think what they would say is that the statue was not created nor are photos provided with an aim to ‘appeal to a prurient interest’.
>>> It would be hard to defend that claim as to the creation of the statue.
On the other hand, I feel fairly confident in claiming that women wearing nothing but a sheet that doesn't quite cover their butt are considered sexy in the modern day too.
Would you believe that, say, souvenir postcards of nude Aphrodites sell better than souvenir postcards of Zeus? Why do you think that might be?
If you want to argue that the Venus de Milo is "nonsexual" nudity because it's historical art, you need to deal with its historical significance, which is as a tawdry sex icon.
If you want to argue that the way the Greeks viewed the statue doesn't matter, you need to deal with the way a statue of a naked woman failing to cover herself with a sheet would be viewed in the modern day, which is... as a tawdry sex icon.
