#transgression

[putall]

Cosey Fanni Tutti, 1977

[unspeakablearchives]

What your opinion on how writer use topic like sa and other tabbo

My interpretation of what you're asking is: “What is your opinion on writers discussing topics like sexual assault and other taboo subjects?”

Well, it's obviously possible to depict taboo subjects without endorsing them... but that's kind of the cowardly answer lol.

So let's go deeper. What about works that actively defend or promote or revel in things like sexual assault, abuse, exploitation, etc?

I don't even want those to be banned. Here are just a few reasons why:

It is better to study darkness than to pretend it doesn't exist.

Suppressed material doesn't disappear - it just goes underground.

And bad ideas are easier to fight when they are visible to the public.

Censorship destroys evidence that scholars and investigators need.

Even monstrous writing can be useful as evidence, for instance if it documents crimes or other harm the author may have committed.

No authority can be trusted to "correctly" limit human imagination.

The people most eager to ban the worst material are rarely content to stop there. History shows that censorship always expands.

Few works are uniformly ugly. Even the most repulsive writings may contain moments of insight or reflection we can learn from.

Democracy is built on the idea that we must trust people, as a whole, to decide what's best for themselves, and to make their own personal decisions.

We can never predict how writings may affect strangers. If there is no single, specific individual target who is tangibly harmed, then we cannot say with any confidence that any work is innately "harmful."

Minority voices almost never control the censorship machine. This means works by minority groups end up policed much more harshly.

Rules regarding any censorship are necessarily vague and open to interpretation.

When people fear punishment for certain speech, they try to stay well within the law for their own safety. That leads people to self-censor perfectly legal speech just to be safe (a "chilling effect")

Access to more viewpoints - even shocking and vile ones ones - is a good thing. More information is good. Ignorance is NOT a virtue.

[tyger-land]

𝗔𝗻𝗱𝗿𝗲𝘀 𝗦𝗲𝗿𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗼 The Other Christ. 2001.

[gothicseverance]

A repeated crossing-and-recrossing of the line, a play of limits at/on the line.

—Toward a Multicultural Gothic Aesthetics

[vesperalis666]

📜 Long before the biblical texts, the figure of "Satan" already existed

not under that name, but in familiar traits: gods of wisdom, rebellion, and the breaking of established orders.

In Sumerian and Egyptian traditions, Enki and Seth already embodied this role of "sacred disruptor," not as evil figures, but as spiritual catalysts.

[alephskoteinos]

(Georges Bataille, Literature and Evil, pages 15-16)

[humanforaminute]

Evil seems to be understandable, but only to the extent in which Good is the key to it. If the luminous intensity of Good did not give the night of Evil its blackness, Evil would lose its appeal. This is a difficult point to understand. Something flinches in him who faces up to it. And yet we know that the strongest effects on the senses are caused by contrasts. The movement of sensual life is based on the fear which the male inspires in the female, and on the brutal agony of copulation – it is less a harmony than a violence which may lead to harmony, but through excess. In the first place it is necessary to effect a break – union comes at the end of a tournament at which death is the stake. An agonising aspect of love emerges from its multiple experiences. If love is sometimes pink, pink goes well with black, without which it would be a sign of insipidity. Without black, pink would surely lose that quality which affects the senses. Without misfortune, bound to it as shade is to light, indifference would correspond to happiness. Novels describe suffering, hardly ever satisfaction. The virtue of happiness is ultimately its rarity. Were it easily accessible it would be despised and associated with boredom. The transgression of the rule alone has that irresistible attraction which lasting happiness lacks.       The most powerful scene in [In Search of Lost Time] (which puts it on a level with the blackest tragedy) would not have the profound significance we attribute to it if this first aspect were not counterbalanced. If pink has to be contrasted with black in order to suggest desire, would this black be black enough had we never thirsted for purity? Had it not tarnished our dream in spite of ourselves? Impurity is only known by contrast by those who thought they could not do without its opposite, purity. [...] moral feeling [...] gives our sins that criminal flavor without which they seem natural, without which they are natural.      [...] happiness alone is not desirable in itself and would result in boredom if the experience of misfortune, or of Evil, did not make us long for it. The opposite is also true: had we not, like Proust (and, maybe, even Sade), longed for Good, Evil would provide us with a succession of indifferent sensations.

Georges Bataille, Literature and Evil

[jocrudedispatches]

MARY WHITEHOUSE RAPES ON CAMERA

MARY WHITEHOUSE RAPES ON CAMERA

MARY WHITEHOUSE RAPES ON CAMERA

You can see sex in eye sockets

You can see death by a falling TV

You can see change by the counter

You don't see so you won't see me

Scratching the itch is an error

You can find gold in a desolate mean

Blacken the pit and the crevasse

Making our tea crops grow lean

You can stuff everything in me

Excepting only one single thing

This here is no way to virtue

Whitehouse ghost of queen and king

MARY WHITEHOUSE RAPES ON CAMERA

MARY WHITEHOUSE RAPES ON CAMERA

MARY WHITEHOUSE RAPES ON CAMERA