When you start defining what is and isn't art, you eventually play the Ashcroft's of the world's game. First, deny that it has any "artistic merit" and then you can ban it. I know that's not what you intend but it's a slippery slope. How can anyone's definition of art be anything but subjective? Some guy in London does a dead cow in a vat of preservative. He calls it art, makes more money than most of us and wins a prize. Is it art? Does it matter?

As for the gallery, there is some validity to most of the comments here, testosterone, the innate beauty of the human body, Poser's limitations etc. I think many people, myself included, don't think visually. It is difficult to "see" an image or create that concept in the mind before even beginning to put paint to canvas or mouse to pad. So, people do what they have seen and admired or been stimulated by. Look around, magazines, MTV, comics... Whether it's Xena Warrior Princess or an ad for just about anything. Provacative female images are everywhere.

You can also blame the sorry state of art education in this country. How many people today have had any serious exposure to Vermeer or Picasso? How many have even set foot in a gallery? Pop culture rules and that means what sells. Sex sells.

"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." - H. L. Mencken