I am new to all this and have just finished reading this thread - I have found it really interesting and informative as a relative newcomer to RR. The one thing that strikes me about nudity and Art v Porn is that the same issues don't seem to apply in sculpture. To give you an example, I just spent a day at the Tate Gallery in London, where I saw a fantastic sculpture/statue of a naked young boy. It was anatomically graphic and very beautiful. It was pure art and could not have been seen in any other way. However, I did wonder at the time if the same image would have been acceptable as a life-size photograph/painting up on the wall in the Tate. If the answer is no, it would not be acceptable, does that mean that statues/sculptures do not have the same arousal issues that photographs/paintings/drawings do? And if not - why not?