I want to make this clear: it is incredibly based for a disabled artist to create art about their intense, codependent, ambiguously sexual relationship with their support animal
It seems I have a different ethical system than most of the community. This seems obviously degenerate to me.
If you have the goal to push the Overton window on zoophilia, then burying the lead seems like the best way to go about that. I suspect that telling the audience and critics about the clearly sexual relationship the artist had with their dog would invite much more negativity.
It seems I have a different ethical system than most of the community. This seems obviously degenerate to me.
If you have the goal to push the Overton window on zoophilia, then burying the lead seems like the best way to go about that. I suspect that telling the audience and critics about the clearly sexual relationship the artist had with their dog would invite much more negativity.