Anonymous #1 10w

I don’t think gore or X rated things should be out in the public eye. If u want to go to an art gallery, pick up a book, turn on a movie, or walk into a designated space for it then that’s fine bc that’s consensual. As someone who likes darker media for its messages I also understand consent is very important and often downplayed because of our societies culture. Like I said I’m talking about X rated graphic depictions. I think ppl forget that children and victims are apart of the public

5

Anonymous #1 10w

Harm doesn’t have to be just physical, it can be mental or emotional.

4

Anonymous OP 10w

Im not sure if i can agree with the consent perspective either. I dont consent to seeing a lot of shit in public i dont want to but i understand its the public. I mostly take issue with barring "vulgarity" from the public due to how it has historically been used to impede on first amendment rights. The subjective nature of the term can be the mechanism. Plus this is just personal but seeing crazy gory art as a child rlly inspired me and got me into a lot of the music and art im into today.

1

Anonymous #1 10w

Yes but that is simply you and your experience. I bet we can find people who have been affected negatively due to seeing X rated things such as g*re or 18+ acts as a child. Victims of horrific acts also deserve to be able to live life peacefully in public without having to see again I’ll repeat g*re and heavy depictions of sggs. Simply ignoring the feelings of others for wanting to express yourself outside of a consensual agreement (such as opening a book which would fall under freedom of-

0

Anonymous OP 10w

-speech) is contributing to the philosophy of rpe culture. Weather you like it or not a graphic t shirt with a bloodied woman isn’t something appropriate to wear in public and isn’t something that you should wear in public. Disregarding the mental harm you could do to others bc only you consent to it isn’t fair to others who don’t. That is the principle

0

Anonymous OP 10w

But the same logic you are using is used to oppress people, which is my main objection to it. Vulgarity is subjective and wearing an edgy shirt is not the same as perpetuating rape culture respectfully. "I dont like it therefore it shouldnt be allowed it public" has and is used to oppress like most minorities. For ex, normative women can wear bikinis just fine but my body gets treated as vulgar because i dont shave/look gay. Ik its not the same but i dont have much room in a yikyak comment 2 say

5

Anonymous #1 10w

I said books, art in galleries, movies, and spaces for this kind of media are allowed to exist. Which still falls under freedom of speech and expression. Those items are still public and can still be publicly accessed (within the correct age restrictions bc we have those so clearly there are guidelines for media) so it would still be allowed in the public but you as the viewer give consent to see those things by opening the book, walking into the gallery, turning on the movie

1

Anonymous #1 10w

There is no oppression if all of the media is still existing and continuing to be accessed and allowed to be created. And ppl are still going to wear X rated graphic t shirts in public. I simply hate when ppl acknowledge what they are doing is purposely making ppl uncomfortable when moving around public spaces that’s weird.

1

Anonymous OP 10w

But a band shirt is different than an art exhibit. All those "acceptable" spaces youre talking about involve a level of exclusivity which also filters the "vulgar" yk?

1

Anonymous OP 10w

Well idk to use my example again i know it makes people uncomfortable when i go to the beach in a bikini but i do it anyways because i dont ascribe to their conception of vulgarity. Would u consider a shirt with nirvana's in utero vulgar?

1

Anonymous #1 10w

Ur example is flawed. When ppl go to the beach they expect a bikini. When you do to a pool you expect a bikini. What ppl DONT expect is a naked woman slathered in fake blood, and what ppl don’t want to hear when seeing a naked woman slathered in fake blood is “it’s art you’re supposed to be uncomfortable this is how I dress to the beach” because if you are waking up to display X rated images to purposely make ppl uncomfortable on a daily basis then you’re weird.

1

Anonymous #1 10w

To the nirvana cover: No because it’s an album cover everyone knows and it’s a pop culture symbol. It’s not again g*re or violent depictions of sggs

1

Anonymous OP 10w

So gore is allowed if its an album cover? There are some rlly gory ones. I made a shirt with the cover of big black's racer x on it. Would that cross your line?

1

Anonymous #1 10w

If that’s what you imagine when I say violent depictions of X rated material then I would advise you not to watch any horror movie ever created. I’m talking like if you took a snf film screencap and put it on a t shirt. Idk how many times I need to be more clear

1

Anonymous OP 10w

My example is to speak to the logic of barring vulgarity and how it can be expanded in a way that just others people that society decides is not ok. At my hs the dress code banned gore, sex, drugs, and anything queer. Its rlly the same logic

1

Anonymous OP 10w

The album cover is an illustration of an eviscerated dog with its dick out i feel like you would count that as vulgar

1

Anonymous #1 10w

Okay a highschool banning 18+ things in a setting among minors (not counting queer things) is appropriate because you should not be displaying those things unless intended for educational purposes around children. I’m talking about someone displaying sn uf level material out in public. You clearly don’t understand the material that I’m referring to so I’m going to end the conversation here

1

Anonymous #1 10w

It’s a pencil drawing which is highly cartoonish and doesn’t fall under X rated

1