Is sexuality an art form? Not sexual orientation, (whether we’re straight, gay, bisexual, etc), but sexuality itself- the way in which we present ourselves sexually? The way that we dress, communicate our desires, the act of sex itself, even.

Is it art?

In the context of women’s rights, erotic art has played an important role in promoting social justice, and advocating for the sexual liberation of women, for decades.

Through its ability to challenge societal norms and push the boundaries of what is considered ‘acceptable’, erotic art is a powerful tool allowing for artists to address previously taboo issues relating to sexuality, gender, and identity.

Through their work, female artists have been able to advocate for greater sexual freedom and push back against the constraints of oppressive systems, thus offering them the chance of a sexual revolution. How? By presenting women with an opportunity to depict themselves as sexual beings on their own terms, something which, historically, has been unheard of where women have been the bearer of meaning, not the maker of meaning.

The muse, not the artist.

But for the male gaze no more…

Throughout the course of art history, women’s bodies have been depicted in artwork by men, often objectified as ‘muses.’

Women are put on display by male artists for the pleasure of male spectators and their imaginary knowledge of female sexuality. Such ‘knowledge’ has seen men viewing nude women as valuable, not for their individuality, but for their ability to conform and appeal to general male fantasies.

In the past hundred years, however, female sexuality in art has been through a process of reclamation.

These days, erotic art is less about objectification, men using women as muses to sell more by depicting them as nothing more than sex objects, and more about female empowerment.

Artists informed by feminism and/or queerness are radically challenging and changing the landscape of art, shifting portrays of eroticism by using the female body as the desiring subject rather than the fetishised ‘object.’ This comes as more women are depicting themselves in the nude, and therefore becoming their own muses.

And rightfully so.

It’s so important that we see more women represented in the arts as both artist and muse, so that we can see an accurate representation of female sexuality being brought to light.

When a male artist is painting a woman nude, for example, they are more likely to accentuate all the features that appeal to the male gaze, and brush over (pardon the pun), everything else.

Just look at porn to see how this works.

The directors of porn (who are disproportionately male), focus on creating footage that will satisfy men- ‘P-in-V’ sex (which, in case you aren’t already aware of, 81.6% of women don’t orgasm from), and yet, this is all we’re shown.

Created by men, for men, porn exists to satisfy a predominantly male demographic.

The male perception of female sexuality though, it’s never going to be an accurate representation, because men just don’t have the lived experience of female sexuality that females have because… well, they’re not female.

In contrast, when women are responsible for representing themselves and their sexuality through art/when women are both the ‘creator’ and the ‘created’, then the art shown will be accurate.

Accurate and… deeper, with it being forged with so much more meaning than the incredibly shallow idea that men have surrounding women existing to appease men…

If you want something done properly, do it yourself…

^ Make of that (erotic art, please!), what you will.