>>4185900Women are not a drug. You're mistaking a stimulus for a drug. Biological response to seeing a female is not the same as a chemical taken to enter an altered state. Your analogy also doesn't make sense because I'm not forcing you to look at my work, nor is it jumping out at you by surprise. It's photography on a forum about photography, which is something you'd expect to find here. If I were slipping prints into your morning bowl of cereal and you seeing them when you went to have your breakfast it might hold some weight, but that's not what's happening. Also, you arguably had a fair warning too as the OP image isn't in the slightest gratuitous but still gave you a good idea of what was coming. Not that you should need a trigger warning to get through life, let alone this fucking website. On top of that there's nothing pornographic here and no sex is portrayed. I know I've said it before but I don't think you have a good grasp of what liberty actually is.
I don't think you have a good idea of LaVeyan satanism was either as that wasn't based around liberty at all, it was based around personal power and personal gain. You're just being a silly sausage and conflating things you don't really know about to back up what is essentially a nonsensical opinion based on assumptions and other things you don't like. Namely the lack of representation in the arts and pop culture of what you personally deem to be moral. The only real answer to this is for you to create the work that you want to see and sharing that with the world, or even just with anonymous peers here. Something that I would fully support you doing as it's precisely what I'm doing here right now.
I don't think my work is particularly counter-culture but it's also not pop culture and it's certainly not corporate sponsored. It's just people exercising their right to freedom of expression and me exercising my right to freedom to create. That, for me, is one of the ways of gaining liberty over authority.
