HOME | DD
Qwertiane —
Why All The Hatred?
Published: 2011-02-05 14:24:46 +0000 UTC; Views: 32362; Favourites: 2060; Downloads: 462
Redirect to original
Description
EDIT: Thank all you guys who have been answering people with different views, or people who don't know anything but insults, or people who love to hate. Thanks for not being rude, thanks for spreading the love.~Q
♥
Related content
Comments: 955
I don't think you can call a site that daily gives out DDs for erotic/nude art, makeup art, figurines and the random traditional art can be called a "political" anything when they happen to show a positive perspective on homosexuals. Personally, if you can find a respectful/well-done KKK/Nazi/Anti-gay piece of art, then I say submit it for a DD. If you think that something that spreads hate is a better stance to take, you have that right.
Although, I guess you could say the same thing for the pro-life artwork that gets DD's. There's not a positive 'spin' you can put on pro-choice, so I've never seen a pro-choice piece of art get a DD either.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You've missed my point completely. I'm not judging political content; I'm judging lack of artfulness. Jean Genet's poems and plays are art, as are Paul Gaugin's nudes. Art can be explicitly political, but it doesn't have to be; nevertheless, explicitly political content, whether politically correct or otherwise, doesn't make a work a work of art.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
No, I understood your point. My point was that: what you judge to be art or not art is wholly your own opinion. I personally don't think candid shots of a girl's vulva via a cell phone and bathroom mirror is art--but according to DA it is, because there's no "specific" reason it is not art, and therefore something that they will bother to remove from the site. Someone else thinks it's art, I don't, especially when the quality is (again) the quality of an older cell phone.
However, I think this is art, as the people who have said they would wear this or use it as a sticker--there's obviously something pleasing about the symbol and words as a whole. Are there things that could be changed to make it a bit more pleasing? Yes, which I've already stated in a comment to the artist. Are a few details off? Yes. Does that mean that it is not art? No. I don't think anyone was making a political statement when they submitted this as a DD or when it was accepted as a DD.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I agree that if there's no thought about composition or context, there's nothing artful in candid vulva shots via cellphones. I commend DA's reluctance to censor, as it protects not only gratuitous vulva shots, but also other potentially other forms of expression, such as this one.
I wanted to see more personal engagement here on the part of the artist. The creator's intentions were obviously political, and that's okay, but she does say that she's a heterosexual woman expressing solidarity with gays and lesbians. I don't see any evidence that she's grappled with the issues of sexual tolerance; instead, I see a slogan in the vein of "Things go better with Coke" or "Winston tastes good like a cigarette should." These ad campaigns were eye-catching as well, but they amounted to soundbites, whether visual or auditory, and didn't engage the beholder for more than a second.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Just for the sake of clarification here. What you're saying then is that, if she had either 1) not given her sexual preference; then this would be more like art? Or 2) had said she were homosexual, this would be art...because you would then think it were more personal? That just sounds, to me, that now you are judging what makes a piece of art personal to someone. I am in no way Catholic, but I often find myself drawing Saints--does that mean that the artwork is less personal to me than it would be if I were Catholic, or that other Christians shouldn't be touched by whatever I'm portraying?
Would the symbolism be more poignant, for you, if she had used the equal sign in the center and instead of all the labels just used, "hetero, homo, human"?
Just because she's straight, and even if there is political views involved, it doesn't mean that her art isn't art, or that it doesn't mean something to her (and obviously other people). I just feel that you trying to knock her work by saying it's not your specific view of art (or your reason behind art)...I want to say rude, but that's not exactly what I mean...& I can't seem to grasp the term I want to use. Well, either way...I stand by what I said. I think it's art, I think she got her point across, and I'm glad DA gave it a DD.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
What I'm saying is "show; don't tell." It's easy to come up with a slogan or repeat a phrase, and apply a little bit of typographical prestidigitation to its presentation; it's much harder, but certainly not impossible, to convey empathy for people of other gender, racial, or religious identities. Leo Tolstoy created one of the most memorable female characters in Russian literature, Anna Karenina, though he himself was male. His empathy for Anna made her a realistically drawn character. Likewise, in "To Kill a Mockingbird", Harper Lee wrote with verisimilitude about white-on-black racism in Maycomb, Alabama even though she herself was white.
"Anna Karenina" would have been no less great if Lee Tolstoy were female, and "To Kill a Mockingbird" would have been no less great if Harper Lee were black. We care about both authors' characters not because of who their authors were but because of their talent for making us empathize as readers. I do think that the creator of this work has her heart in the right place, and I think she has a talent for typography, but maybe graphic art like this isn't the right medium for her purpose. Can we just agree to disagree?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'll agree to disagree, that's just a for sure thing.
I don't agree with anything you just said since, to me, you just re-stated what I stated about how you don't have to be what you're trying to create for it to have meaning. Just as there are plenty of great artists who create female characters who are male, as you said, it doesn't mean you have to be gay to make something emphasizing with the GLBT community. & I still stand by the fact that you don't know what the artist feels or where their heart is placed. Stating simply that she is straight & the production of the art should be enough for you (since you already agreed that not being something doesn't mean you can't produce great art). I believe that if she had left her orientation out of the artist comment, you wouldn't have had anything to say about politics--which just makes everything you say seem like hypocrisy.
Again though, I agree. Agreeing to disagree is the best route to take here.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Nope. I would have said that the work was a hastily put together poster, no matter what the content, and that it was overpraised. That's it. That's the gist of everything I've said.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Not what I got out of what you said. To me you said that she doesn't understand how to be straight and artistically show her support of a political stance without being political, which it has to be political because she's straight and not gay. Yet that you don't have to be a certain thing to be able to talk about it or do something artistic with a subject, but because she didn't specifically state (or rather show) in her art that she's a straight person supporting the LGBT community, it makes the art less than what it should be considered. & that because people actually like it, still doesn't make it art to you, because it's a universal symbol with her own text and therefore thoughts on the symbol and subject--but still not art. To me, that's hypocrisy & just another reason to go with your original statement of agreeing to disagree.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The subject matter is political regardless of the identity of the originator; I never said otherwise. And she is free to produce political art regardless of her identity, as are you and I.
I'm also free to say that I'm not a fan of political correctness and the totalitarianism that attends it, and that if one wants to transcend the soundbite culture that political correctness has engendered, one needs to go deeper than simple soundbites.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So though you were the first to say that agreeing to disagree was the best way to go, you're not listening to your own advice....or what?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Other potentially controversial forms of expression, not other potentially other forms of expression, but that works, too.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
novels and plays, not poems and plays.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
FAQ #873: What do I do when I disapprove of a Daily Deviation feature?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
This is all too true but lets go a bit beyond. Every sexual orientation and preference has it's downside and most people abuse theirs. For example straights and gays have their STDs from not acknowledging the dangers of intercourse, while the incestuous and pedophiles are shunned for their possibly natural actions (you can't help who you fall in love with or so I'm told). So there is room for digest, but not hated and unfortunately people let it manifest to that.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Gonna field that pedophilia thing right here, right now. "Pedophile" is not a sexuality. It is a mental aberration or, at least, a mental "disease." In fact, most pedophiles don't have an explicit sexual preference and are fairly indiscriminate in their victims. What matters to them is the age of those they prey on (younger than 13) and the power that gives them over their victims. There is also the fact that many pedophiles *are* able to become sexually aroused by mature partners, but choose to abuse children. In fact, some research even suggests that pedophiles are driven by their own past abuses (sexual or non), and not by any innate biological difference.
Please don't equate homosexuality (an inborn, biological drive) with pedophilia.
And before you scream SOURCE, here's just a handful of sources from the long and prolific research on this area:
[link]
[link]
[link]
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Pedophilia is a preference that is identified as a mental illness mostly because it is defined buy the actual act of penetration. I find the definition is incorrect. For those who do break the law and hurt others through will, they deserve punishment. Yes there are many pedophiles out there abusing little kids and they deserve their just deserts. Though any sexual attraction to anything could be natural just like homosexuality or sadomasochism. If something is repressed then it will lash out. I'm not saying that homosexuality is the same as pedophilia just that everyone should be tolerant of everything even if they find it disgusting until someone crosses the line. If someone could be born to be sexually attracted to men or women then they could be born to be sexually attracted to animals or kids or whatever. Sexuality and preference are so vast that everyone should be tolerant up until someone does something illegal/wrong, that's when one should judged. At some point someone will find someone else's sexuality or preference taboo and it sadly turns into hate. I hope to one day see a world where gay weddings are not protested and the good name of sex, sexuality, and preference isn't abused.
I use to be so hateful out of lazy ignorance, this is one of the things that helped me understand, now I'm just indifferent to everyone sexuality and preference. [link]
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Actually, it's not defined by the act of penetration. The vast majority of pedophiles don't perform penetrative sex with their victims. Instead, they use heavy petting, frotting, oral contact etc. And when the object of their affections grows up, they lose all interest.
And even if pedophilia is an inborn trait, it cannot be held to be a sexuality. Sexuality, by definition, involves an attraction towards one sex, multiple sexes, or no sexes. As I noted above (and as much research has noted) pedophiles are indiscriminate in their predation. Attraction only exists as long as their victim is young. They do not care about sex, they only care about age and powerlessness.
And you do realize your link to "research" is a link to a website run by people dedicated to normalizing the practice of sexual contact between adolescents, children, and adults, right? In fact, they were previously known as the International Pedophile and Child Empancipation organization.[link] The particular paper you cited is based on Rind et al's findings, which have been called into question and found invalid by the academic community. [link] And its author is an outspoken advocate of the "child love movement" [link]
I also want to confirm that I do not hate pedophiles as a whole. I hate their actions. I hate that there is no cure for their behaviors. I hate the individual pedophiles who have no remorse for their behaviors. But I do not hate the individuals who suffer from this disease and who attempt to control it. I just wanted to point out that it is harmful to the advancement of civil liberties for homosexual, bisexual, transgendered and other genderqueer folk to equate their behaviors and desires with pedophelia.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I did not notice that that my flawed finding was one from a movement that supports the abuse of children yet it still helped me tolerate all sexualities and preferences (I have always considered to include pedophilia as a preference). Although it can be a normal and tamed and that's the exception I'm trying to target. As long as they don't do anything harmful to anyone why should I persecute them? Other sexualities will get their rights and people trying to relate it with pedophilia negatively will fail in their attempts to hinder those natural rights. I don't want to profile anyone, I just want to clarify that people should not be so offended by someones likes and dislikes until they have reason to, that's what the piece above tells me. As for the hate thing that was directed toward me specifically. I went through a period in my life where I was one sided and didn't care for the other. That was a mistake I hope more people will correct if they find themselves or anyone else cornered to it. I wish nothing but the best for everyone. Rights, tolerance, and acceptance for all.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I personally have no issue with incest, but when a 70 year-old man has sex with a 10 year-old girl...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes it is a bit unsettling but if they are both happily it's hard to say anything really. However true love waits, I think the age of consent should be at least 18 or 21 worldwide. And I meant hatred, typos
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
now, this was an important thing to be said. good to find yet another one who shares a same, humanistic opinion.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Good to see people have similiar opinions (:
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Wonderful message portrayed in an original way. Love it!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
HELL YEAH! You said it
There's is nothing wrong with being gay or loving other people of the same sex. Everyone deserves to be loved.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Although I don't support gay love and all that junk...
Congratulations on the Daily Deviation and nice work!
👍: 0 ⏩: 3
How the fuck is love junk? Piss off.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, it's kinda like stuff, only I tend to call it junk cuz I want to colour, not to ridicule. That's all. ._.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
And all that junk? I don't see how suffering because you were made with a different sexual preference is "junk".
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Um... I normally call many things junk. It's like doodles and stuff, that's all. ._.;
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
saying you don't support gay love is saying you don't support love itself....
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I don't think I've ever seen it that way.
Maybe, but yeah, I'm only young and somehow don't understand it so much.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
One of the most truest things I have ever seen. There is way too much hate in the world. There needs to be more happiness. I completely support this.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yay for tolerance! One more step towards a better tommorrow.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I agree. Why all the hatred? We mostly live on a big ball of hate! I support this!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I agree. Why all the hatred? We mostly live on a big ball of hate! I support this!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
As far as i'm concerned, i'm strait, but i totally agree with this 
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
preach it!
i'm a heterosexual girl supporting homosexuals too. i'm oddly passionate about it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Be proud of it. Better than to be proud of hating someone. :3
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
so, SO true. it's so much that homophobia is actually a major turnoff for me in guys. and i don't mind one bit.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I used to be a het who didn't like "homos" as much.
I'm eating my words at having a girlfriend right now. Lovely words, maybe one day everyone can live in peace and there will no longer be stereotypes. We can all hope c:
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thank you! I wish you and your gf all the best (:
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
<= Prev | | Next =>