Pubic Porn.

Portrait of Ms Ruby May, Standing by Leena McCall

An art gallery removed a piece of art claiming the pubic hair it depicted was too erotic for children and lots of people got mad.

Hashtag Pubegate.

The Society Of Women Artists has held an annual exhibition in London since 1857, according to their website. "In the mid-nineteenth century, women were not considered to be serious contributors to the field of art and had great difficulty in obtaining a public showing. At the first exhibition, 149 women showed 358 works, some hiding their true identities for fear of social recrimination."

Social recrimination indeed, it is to my knowledge that the artist Leena McCall wasn't even informed.

Leena McCall said - “My work deals with female sexual and erotic identity.  The fact that the gallery has deemed the work inappropriate and seen it necessary to have it removed from public display underlines the precise issue I am trying to address: how women choose to express their sexual identity beyond the male gaze.”

What I see, is the fact that this is a piece of art. A beautiful piece of art. Removed from an exhibition for fear it was too inappropriate for children who may be visiting. Children who on their way could have picked up (or purchased for 20p of their pocket money) a discarded copy of The Sun on a tube seat. Where every page is another teeny bikini clad woman with full arse and tits on show. Or fat shaming a D list celebrity. No pubes though, for that's what today has become accustomed to. Courtesy of the shaven haven baring all from surplus porn star vagina's everywhere online. Mostly all of the above for the purpose of the male gaze, what McCall is trying to direct away from. Maybe too much for children to be totally aware of, but if they are subjected to a heavily male dominated version of the way a woman is to express herself, then why is a women's perspective not allowed?

Charlotte Crosby, Geordie Shore - Criticised for weight gain. 

There is nothing wrong whatsoever, in fact, its complete normality, to have a few pubic hairs on the pubic bone. The world can try to shelter the young generation but there is nothing stopping them from being exposed. They have iPads, kindles, laptops, smart phones all equipped with a search engine that can answer their questions ..and then some, within a matter of seconds. My ten year old sister once asked me an inappropriate question to which I replied "I'll tell you the answer in a couple of years" To which she replied "fine then! I'll google it."

The world is not always a nice place. You only need to watch the news to see bombs being dropped in Gaza, a burning plane or Jimmy Saville's victims. Children are constantly exposed to reality.

Take a trip to many an art gallery around central London and you shall experience much nudity, in the form of art, not trying to be harmful and expose children to an adult world before their years. Pubic hair is being deemed as porn here and it seems extremely excessive. This is not a naked women exposing herself in any form of pornographic way. This is a painting in a gallery, especially for Women Artists. Where the artist is trying to address women's identity beyond the male gaze. I feel this highlights ignorance all round and reflects the lack of any useful education regarding modern sexuality.

Discussion was taken to twitter under the hashtag #eroticcensorship and there is a panel discussion being held at the Leyden Gallery on Thursday 24th July.

What are your thoughts on the painting being removed? Please let me know.