In going over Stanley Kubrick's wiki page on his famous film "A Clockwork Orange" I remembered there was some controversy over the designer furniture that was in the movie.

In the movie, Stanley had wanted to use resin cast furniture done originally as art, from the modern artist Allen Jones. These were tastefully done female figures in three postions, a chair, hatstand, and a coffee table. The artist refused to manufacture more of the pieces for the film, but stated he would allow him to make copies of his art to appear in the film.

I took a look at these pieces, and found them erotic. I did not see why they would stir up controversy. Especially since all this happened so long ago. It seemed to be considered demeaning to women, because of the women are possibly in a degrading submissive pose. But that is not why I found it erotic, I have always loved the female body as a shape. To me, sitting in the chair, puts me close to that female body.
I think people are overreacting when they suggest the furniture is demeaning or a hatred of women. It is no more a hatred of women then an object that someone associates on their own to be such an object. Anyone can assign their own association to any object, that does not mean others need to apply the same association.

Also this led me to another wikipedia section that talked about human furniture as in real humans in submissive roles that take on the task of being a piece of furniture for sexual excitement.
This seems to fall into the BDSM category and I found it kind of exciting. I have never attempted this in any of my sexual exploring, but felt it would be fun with some females that request to be super submissive.

Has anyone tried the submissive role of playing a chair or foot rest?

Does anyone have contempt for the idea of the furniture art created by Allen Jones?

As a feminist, I believe that art, including furniture design, should not objectify or demean women. While some may argue that the female figures in Allen Jones' furniture are simply a celebration of the female form, it's important to consider the context in which they were created and the impact they have on women and our society as a whole.

Objectifying women in media and popular culture contributes to harmful attitudes and beliefs that perpetuate sexism and gender inequality. This can have real-world consequences, including the perpetuation of gender-based violence and discrimination. As feminists, we strive for a world where women are valued as full and equal members of society, and where their contributions and achievements are recognized and celebrated.

In regards to the idea of using human beings as furniture, this is also concerning from a feminist perspective. It is important to ensure that all sexual activities are consensual and respectful, and that individuals are not treated as objects for another person's pleasure. BDSM and other forms of sexual expression can be enjoyed in a safe and respectful manner, but it is important to always prioritize the well-being and autonomy of all individuals involved.

Overall, as a feminist, I believe that art and design should not perpetuate harmful gender stereotypes or objectify individuals. We must always strive for a world where all individuals are respected and valued, regardless of their gender or any other characteristic.

The furniture design in question is a work of art, and it's not fair to criticize it for being potentially offensive. It is simply a representation of the female form and an exploration of human sexuality, which is a valid and important topic for artistic expression. Additionally, the artist did not intend to demean or objectify women with their work, so it's not fair to interpret it that way. Ultimately, the perception of the art is subjective, and people are free to have their own associations with it. As for the concept of using human beings as furniture, this falls under the category of consensual BDSM activities, and as long as it is safe, sane, and consensual, it is a valid form of sexual expression. People should be allowed to explore their own sexual desires and preferences as long as they are not causing harm to others.

I had an experience where I depicted a piece of furniture, namely a footrest. You can see what it looked like here:
https://cinema.theoryofsex.club/humiliation-therapy-masturbation-and-rimming-episode-1-of-prehistory-to-killing-dragons/

In my opinion, it doesn't evoke any negative feelings, such as a sense of humiliation or anything of the sort. I think the shade of feelings that arise depends on what's going on in a woman's head, what actions or perception ideas she personally associates with it.

Personally, I believe that there's nothing wrong or humiliating in using female forms to create furniture or depict furniture with a live person. It's important not to forget that men can also depict furniture pieces. I think that the female body is usually more graceful (when it comes to imbuing furniture with female forms), which is why Stanley Kubrick used this form in his film.

I would be happy to furnish my home with sexual furniture - using both male and female forms, as well as the form of sexual intercourse between a man and a woman. I see it as very sexual and creating a harmonious atmosphere.