There was a fine piece about this at the Orthosphere blog:
>I do not believe the Manchester Art Gallery had a problem with males scratching their itch as they stood before Hylas and the Nymphs, or even with male patrons running for the exits in search of some compliant scratcher. The problem was not that men were scratching, but that they might start itching.
>In other words, the problem was “sex in the head.”
>But this sex in the head was not a problem for the reason D. H. Lawrence and Dr. Brubaker saw it as a problem, which was that it might not get scratched. And it was not a problem for the reason Francesco Colonna saw it as a problem, which was that it might get scratched.
>It was a problem because it was in the head, and therefore outside the control of the bitter harridans who had the painting removed.
>What I believe worried the bitter harridans was that viewing Hylas and the Nymphs might give a man the itch for world in which there were more nymphs and fewer Harridans. This would not be, I hasten to add, a fantasy of the global bordello, since that is what we actually have. It is a fantasy where the male gaze is met, as it is being met in this painting, by an equally prurient gaze.
>That is, after all, what happened when Hylas came to this grotto. He fell for the nymphs and they fell for him. Everyone got the itch and their itches all got scratched.
>Release me, O Nymphs, I implore ye! For when through these waters I sank.
>Ye promised to lead me back thither, Now must I return on my way
>But vainly he pleaded in accents, Now angry, now tearful, now soft
>The nymphs flung their white arms around him ‘O Hylas, we love thee, here dwell!’
>. . . .
>So softly beguiled with their voices, he gave him to lover’s delights,
>And the nymphs of the grotto, as servants, attended his slightest behest.”
>(Cecil Roberts “Strayed Hylas” [c. 1920])
https://orthosphere.wordpress.com/2018/05/03/profiles-in-prurience/