[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
> [John Grove:] I ... found something a little peculiar about all
> the nymphs. I don't know if anyone has ever ventured into this
> particular area of discussion before, but with the detail given
> to hair styles on the nymphs and the obvious developed breasts,
> shouldn't there also be plenty of under-arm or pubic hair?
> Wouldn't this be expected?
Well, I don't know. The male ideal of female beauty seems to always
have included a hairless body. For instance, I cannot think of any
famous nude painting that shows body hair.
One possible explanation is that hairless skin is generally a sign of
youth. (I suppose that the same association holds for men, too ---
that must be why I like shaving my beard.)
On the other hand, pubic hair in particular has a fairly strong sexual
connotation, so its absence in "decorative" nudes (as distinguished
from openly erotic/pornographic ones) could be due to prudery --- or,
in fancier words, to the general supression of sexuality that is
required to make civilization work.
Now for the Voynich nymphs, specifically. First, perhaps they *do* have
pubic hair. Check those in f82r, in particular. We defintely need
some high resolution images...
Otherwise, the lack of pubic hair would fit with the general character
of the VMS nymphs. To my eyes, there is no erotic content in those
drawings --- or, at most, only a "childish" kind of eroticism. This
feature cannot be due to the artist's limitations: he/she was very
effective at showing the playful mood of the nymphs in the communal
shower (f84r). Check, for instance, Miss Otoly and Miss Okolshy (2nd
and 3rd from top right).
All the best,