Original AFD Artwork Debate

[wasted]

10 hours ago, Blackstar said:

As far as most of Appetite goes, it's mere realism. It's just the reality of their life at the time in the lyrics, not celebrated or glossed over, in some cases dealt with apathy (like in It's So Easy), in other cases with humanity (My Michelle, Rocket Queen) or even with a sense of morality (Jungle), which makes it a social commentary, but no preaching . There's nothing complex and deep about it (and probably they thought about it less than we do) but that's the power of it.

----

(This is not a reply to you specifically, but some general thoughts on the whole debate)

ˇ ˇ ˇ ˇ ˇ

The Williams painting is not realistic, even if its message is about the same life reality (that's its relation to the content of the album), depicted as a dystopia. The only element in it that is drawn directly from reality is the rape, but the whole scenery is unrealistic (even the rape victim, although human, is a Cinderella type cartoon figure), a fantasy world as imagined by the artist. And as such it raises questions open to the viewers' interpretation. For example: Why the rapist is a robot? Why the rapist robot is smashing the little robots/the girl's merchandise? Why there is a merchandise price tag on the girl's hat? What is the role of the monster? (it bears an armour and there are little hands coming out of its "face" pointing at the rapist robot, which is a hint that it's attacking it). And so on.

The artist gave a rough explanation for the narrative of the painting, translating it in terms of common sense and commonly shared moral notions like "justice". However, attempting to interpret it "realistically" by taking its components literally leads to a dead end and can turn the discussion into comedy (that's not bad, as it makes this thread amusing to read). Like: There has been debate if there's really "justice" and punishment of the rapist in the painting; but "wait, it's a robot, and a robot can't literally rape in the first place, it has no genitals, moreover it doesn't even know what rape is, it doesn't have a sense of sexuality or a moral sense and it has no human brains either so it can't have a perspective". So it's what? Nature? But it's not a creature of nature either. Same goes for the monster. Even if it's not a dead end, what does this line of thought leave us with? That the only possible perspective to see the painting from is that of the raped girl, which calls the painting's supposed offensiveness into doubt.

I wonder what the effect of the painting would be if the human-non human roles were reversed, i.e. if the rapist was a half naked attractive human male and the rape victim was a female robot. Would it make the depiction of a rape less, equally, or more disturbing? Personally I think it would have been much more disturbing, as it would dehumanise the victim of the rape, depicting it as an object and moreover it would draw attention to the attractiveness of the human rapist; whereas in the actual painting the victim, although sexualised, is the only human component, and this allows the viewer to identify or sympathise with it.

 

That’s not how I see it. I don’t think the painting is realistic, it’s presentation of a reality, where women are objectified and raped. But the in the reality presented, there’s a rapist and (i used the word justice) but I think it’s a sense of justice, but it’s more like just a cycle of violence. Hence humans have an appetite for destruction. It’s presentation of a violent culture. This is an opinion or just the artists experience. So I would put both the painting and AFD in the same category as NWA as street knowledge. It brings about awareness of certain parts of life we don’t necessarily experience. 

I think the robots the girl is selling is kind of a layering. The robot rapist can just be seen as human, or future male behaviour. There’s some kind of metaphor. I could almost see the robot as the industry or pimp that sells robots via the girl. But he rapes his girls, just like a record company sells the artist’s records, but also rapes the artist and the fans and media prey or feed off this exploitation sometimes unknowingly as just part of a cycle of abuse. 

[wasted]

On 01/07/2018 at 12:23 AM, donny said:

i am a bigger stones fan than a GN'R fan. what about the "shes so cold" 7in cover (boobs out) and the banned "street fighting man" 7in cover ? not to mention the lady in the electric chair and stereotyping black people on the exile album. controversial covers sell records. looking at past covers GN'R are insignificant. 

I can’t think of many controversial covers. Manic Street Preachers cover for Holy Buble of obese woman painting by Jenny Saville. But not sure what the controversy was. Journal for Plague Lovers was also banned. 

Edited July 2, 2018 by wasted

[SoulMonster]

8 hours ago, killuridols said:

Now I have a couple questions for you and I hope you answer them this time:

- If the AFD painting victim was a raped male, what would be your reaction to it? Would you think Williams is a bold artist for equating genders when it comes to rape depictions?

- If the AFD cover victim was a raped male, would you have bought the album? Support the band at all?

- Since for you homicide is higher in the ladder than rape, if the AFD painting depicted a male cut in parts, would you still buy the album? 

I wouldn't react any different to it if it was a man being sexually assaulted, or chopped to pieces. Gender is irrelevant. It would still be a violent album cover. And I don't let violent album covers affect my appreciation of the music within, even if they are tacky or offensive or bluntly chosen just for shock effect. It doesn't really matter to me. I buy records for the music, not for whatever art the band or label decided to put on the cover. As for GN'R there are many things that I could consider a lot more offensive than this particular painting. The painting is wide open for interpretation, some of their lyrics less so. Still, I put things in context, accept that the band isn't perfect, and live with it. I am perfectly able to take a "okay, so I don't like that particular aspect of the band, but I still think this and this song is awesome" approach. If I would reject bands and all their music simply because I didn't like every little piece of it, including their choice of album covers, I would put myself in a difficult position.

As for the painting. I don't find it offensive. I don't find it particularly nice, either. It's a woman who seems to have been assaulted by a robot, and now some kind of avenger seems to attack the robot as a result. That's a common motif in movies. Som kind of injustice followed by revenge. Not really my cup of tea. I don't at all find the painting sexually exploitive and I have zero problems with it being a woman and not a man.

[wasted]

I guess issue comes up because GNR took that image from a niche underground market and put it next to Disney movies at Target. So I understand certain shops not stocking it and that’s their right and understable. But if they used the picture to then ban GNR totally. That’s a problem. That kind of happened to Roseanne, one comment cancelled her entire show which wasn’t racist in anyway, in fact it had liberal elements. Overall it was a negative thing. 

Edited July 2, 2018 by wasted

[killuridols]

7 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I wouldn't react any different to it if it was a man being sexually assaulted, or chopped to pieces. Gender is irrelevant. It would still be a violent album cover.

If gender is irrelevant, why are you asking feminism to advocate for the "right" of having more women depicted in violent situations in art?

14 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I don't at all find the painting sexually exploitive and I have zero problems with it being a woman and not a man.

Previously, you stated that people in general seem to be desensitized when it comes to representations of violence towards men since it's become "natural" for some to watch it and not squirm about it.

Do you consider this "having no problems with it being a woman" some sort of desensitization towards sexual abuse of females?

Females are more common victims of sexual abuse than males, yet males are still object of sexual abuse in particular situations. There aren't many representations of men being sexually abused or exploited or even used as sexual objects in art.

Maybe we should ask sexist artists to have more men depicted in sexually abusive situations because there isn't enough of it. It is almost like sexual abuse towards women is somehow more okay than sexual abuse towards men. 

[SoulMonster]

34 minutes ago, killuridols said:

If gender is irrelevant, why are you asking feminism to advocate for the "right" of having more women depicted in violent situations in art?

Previously, you stated that people in general seem to be desensitized when it comes to representations of violence towards men since it's become "natural" for some to watch it and not squirm about it.

Do you consider this "having no problems with it being a woman" some sort of desensitization towards sexual abuse of females?

Females are more common victims of sexual abuse than males, yet males are still object of sexual abuse in particular situations. There aren't many representations of men being sexually abused or exploited or even used as sexual objects in art.

Maybe we should ask sexist artists to have more men depicted in sexually abusive situations because there isn't enough of it. It is almost like sexual abuse towards women is somehow more okay than sexual abuse towards men. 

I am not asking feminists to do anything, I am pointing out that if we believe violent art is a problem, then we should be more concerned about men and not women being victims since the latter is rarely shown in art whereas violence towards men is commonly shown. Focusing on the more rare occasions where women are shown as victims seems to be the wrong priority. Besides that, if we believe violence in art is wrong, period, then gender shouldn't really matter anyway. ANY depiction of violence would lead to desensitization and should be limited, regardless of gender. The author seems to think women are special somehow and deserves special treatment when she focuses on art that depicts violence against women. Which in my opinion is the opposite of what I think feminism should be, which is to promote equal treatment of the genders and not to try to elevate one gender above the other. 

No, I don't consider myself desensitized to violence against women, I just don't find that particular painting shocking. You see the aftermath of an assault, not the assault itself. But maybe I am desensitized to violence in general? Aren't we all? That being said, I am sure I would find it more disturbing to watch a movie scene where a woman is hurt than a scene where a man is hurt in the same manner. Probably because I have become more desensitized to violence against men, but also because I have grown up in a culture where women deserves special protection and should be treated more nicely. So it would rub against my code of honor, or whatever it is, if you will. Similarly, I wouldn't be able to watch the same thing happening to small children at all.

I have never watched movies or listening to music and thought that the overrepresentation of depictions of sexual assault against women means that "sexual abuse towards women is somehow more okay than sexual abuse towards men", just like I have never seen action movies and thought that all the Latino gangbanger being shot means that it is "more okay to kill Latinos than, say, Jews"; I have always understood this overrepresentation in art as realism since women are more frequently sexual assault victims in real life (and gangbanger in South California tend to be Latinos (or Blacks)), too. Besides, art doesn't shy away from depicting sexual assault towards men in those contexts where it is more common, like in prison scenes. So I don't read more into it than that. 

Edited July 2, 2018 by SoulMonster

[killuridols]

2 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

I am not asking feminists to do anything, I am pointing out that if we believe violent art is a problem, then we should be more concerned about men and not women being victims since the latter is rarely shown in art whereas violence towards men is commonly shown. Focusing on the more rare occasions where women are shown as victims seems to be the wrong priority. Besides that, if we believe violence in art is wrong, period, then gender shouldn't really matter anyway. ANY depiction of violence would lead to desensitization and should be limited, regardless of gender. The author seems to think women are special somehow and deserves special treatment when she focuses on art that depicts violence against women. Which in my opinion is the opposite of what I think feminism should be, which is to promote equal treatment of the genders and not to try to elevate one gender above the other. 

I am not sure where I stand when it comes to violence in art. In general, I am not attracted to watching or looking at violence just because. I don't like photos or paintings depicting murders and rapes (of any gender). But I understand that sometimes they are a representation of the "real world" and I don't oftenly see in this art an intentionality to promote the violence.

The presence of more males depicted in violent situations in art, in my opinion, it is directly related to the participation of males in public life. Historically, men have dominated the public scene and the violence is mostly generated by male subjects, so it is kind of logical that there will be more men depicted in art, also in non-violent situations.

The 'School of Athens' painting shows how male dominated the public scene in Ancient Greece. If you check the pictograms painted by prehistoric people, they also depict a majority of men, because apparently it was men who decided to lead the hunting, to start and end wars, to fight and kill other men for either food, power, leadership, dominance and other objects of desire.

So we keep going back to the roots of violence: men and women are both victims of violence, but women are more frequent victims of an specific kind of violence that targets them solely for being female.

Could be the case that the author of the article is a feminist (I'm just assuming, I don't know her), therefore her focus is within what is expected from feminism but elevating females over males is not what feminism stands for.

2 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

No, I don't consider myself desensitized to violence against women, I just don't find that particular painting shocking. You see the aftermath of an assault, not the assault itself. But maybe I am desensitized to violence in general? Aren't we all? That being said, I am sure I would find it more disturbing to watch a movie scene where a woman is hurt than a scene where a man is hurt in the same manner. Probably because I have become more desensitized to violence against men, but also because I have grown up in a culture where women deserves special protection and should be treated more nicely. So it would rub against my code of honor, or whatever it is, if you will.

In my opinion, this assault aftermath sexualizes the domination and humiliation of the victim. And the comic style of the painting adds an element of jest/mockery that puts me off.

Why does your culture say women deserve special protection and to be treated more nicely? Do you agree with this?

Edited July 2, 2018 by killuridols

[SoulMonster]

18 minutes ago, killuridols said:

Why does your culture say women deserve special protection and to be treated more nicely? Do you agree with this?

I think in Western culture as a whole (and maybe all over the world), women are more protected than men. As kids we learnt that "you don't hit girls". You simply don't. It's cowardly and weak. Real men don't hit ladies. And the implication is of course that it can be okay to hit other men :). I don't know exactly why it is like this, why women have this protection, but from the top of my head I would think there are at least two explanations that probably act in concert:

1) "Since women are weaker than men, it is unfair to attack them". Men beating men is more okay, because men are considered to be on an equal footing. I don't necessarily agree with this. Although on average men are stronger than women, true, I believe the variation between males, and between females, to be larger than the difference between the average of the genders. So there will be many situations where a particular man is weaker than a particular woman, at least to such an extension that the rule cannot be absolute, and there are plenty of examples of domestic abuse where the perpetrator is female and the victim is male. Still, I believe the variation in average brute force, and aggression between the genders, helps explain why it is considered unfair to hit women. 

2) "Women are innocent so they shouldn't be attacked". Men are certainly more aggressive and instigators of more violence than females, but as mentioned above, it isn't cut and dry. Still, traditionally, men's role has been to protect home and family, women have taken more of a back seat in this. We are evolved to be more violent, and to have more muscles. Men are apt to act with violence when threatened, especially when we are defending their women and kids. So women typically don't instigate violence, and hence it is wrong to attack them, or involve them in violence. 

I believe that together these two mechanisms may explain why women are more protected than men in many cultures (all?). These mechanisms also fit children, who are weaker and hence it is unfair to attack them, and usually innocent in conflicts. 

Do I agree with women having this added insulation against violence? No, not really. I am against violence, period, but if I have to use violence, say to protect my kids, I would do it regardless of the gender of whoever threatened them. You hurt my kids and I have to stop that with violence, I will attempt to make you go down in a truly gender-equal fashion. So I think all violence is bad, but if it has to be used then women shouldn't enjoy some extra protection.

[killuridols]

13 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

Although on average men are stronger than women, true, I believe the variation between males, and between females, to be larger than the difference between the average of the genders. So there will be many situations where a particular man is weaker than a particular woman, at least to such an extension that the rule cannot be absolute, and there are plenty of examples of domestic abuse where the perpetrator is female and the victim is male. Still, I believe the variation in average brute force, and aggression between the genders, helps explain why it is considered unfair to hit women. 

I think any healthy man can physically defeat a female any time, even if it is an untrained male. On the other hand, most women will not be able to physically harm a man to the point of knocking them out or cause them serious harm. I am talking, of course, about a one-on-one situation where only bodies are involved (no weapons). The few cases where a woman can physically harm a male are if this male is a child, physically disabled, ill or very old.

But reasons to not hit women should not be based on their physical imbalance. Women should not be hit because violence is not the way to solve whatever problems you may have with a female person, unless, as you said, that female is attacking you or your family and you are in a situation where self-defense is the only method to stop this danger.

13 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

2) "Women are innocent so they shouldn't be attacked". Men are certainly more aggressive and instigators of more violence than females, but as mentioned above, it isn't cut and dry. Still, traditionally, men's role has been to protect home and family, women have taken more of a back seat in this. We are evolved to be more violent, and to have more muscles. Men are apt to act with violence when threatened, especially when we are defending their women and kids. So women typically don't instigate violence, and hence it is wrong to attack them, or involve them in violence.

That sounds like patriarchy to me and I don't see it as "protection", I see it as dominance.

Saying that "women have taken more of a back seat in this" is totally unfair. Women were forced to occupy that place, left out and segregated from the public scene. Relegated to the private sphere. But when it comes to "protect home and family", I think women have done a lot and still do. Most women are still the main caretakers of the family, whether it is the husband, the children or the aging parents.

I am aware there's a new generation of males who are pretty involved with raising their children and taking a more active role in that upbringing. But this is sort of new... For centuries, they only put food in the table and bossed around. In some cultures and some societies, this situation has not changed.

13 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

I believe that together these two mechanisms may explain why women are more protected than men in many cultures (all?). These mechanisms also fit children, who are weaker and hence it is unfair to attack them, and usually innocent in conflicts. 

All? I can only imagine how awesome it must be to live in such fantasy world, but I don't think we are nowhere near to say that "women are more protected" in many cultures or societies, let alone all of them.

Growing up I never felt protected for being a female. All the contrary, from a very young age I learned that being born female comes with extra baggage and issues that boys/males will never face or even take into consideration. As soon as you hit 10 or 11 years old, your body starts changing and with that comes some unwanted attention, but what is more disgusting and dangerous: unwanted attention from adult males. So you have to develop mechanisms to be able to circulate the streets and public places, knowing that sooner or later someone will try to invade your space and claim your body.

Aside from that, which is a situation the majority of females can relate to, when I was teenager I was attacked in two different ocassions by two different boys in junior high. I am talking about physical attack, nothing related to sex or sexual abuse.

I am aware this still happens in schools (now they call it 'bullying') and it is even more violent than it was 2 decades ago.... so I really can't see the so-called protection of women that you mention in your post, especially when we still have high rates of domestic violence, intimate-partner violence, sexual abuse and rape.

 

Edited July 3, 2018 by killuridols

[Scream of the Butterfly]

I did a quick search and here's one list of countries where women aren't even protected by the law, much less the culture:

Nations Without Domestic Violence Regulation

Country	Legislation exists on domestic violence?
DR Congo	No
South Sudan	No
Republic of the Congo	No
Iraq	No
Iran	No
Ivory Coast	No
Myanmar	No
Chad	No
Swaziland	No
Burkina Faso	No
Cameroon	No
Morocco	No
Guinea	No
Estonia	No
Russia	No
Qatar	No
Gabon	No
Eritrea	No
Equatorial Guinea	No
Djibouti	No
Niger	No
Haiti	No
Egypt	No
Oman	No
Syria	No
Sudan	No
United Arab Emirates	No
Bahrain	No
Afghanistan	No
Mauritania	No
Yemen	No
Palestine	No
Uzbekistan	No
Armenia	No
Mali	No
Liberia	No
Lesotho	No
Libya	No
Tunisia	No
Togo	No
Micronesia	No
Algeria	No
Tanzania	No
Kenya	No
Kuwait	No

[killuridols]

Thanks for that info @Scream of the Butterfly 

I know in those places women are abused and it is almost a celebration but I live in Argentina (South America) and even though we are not so bad when it comes to legislation, the cases of violence towards women are really high because that legislation is not effective and in countless opportunities, a woman who's been assigned a panick button, was still murdered by her partner.

So, in my opinion, you dont fix this problem with more useless laws but with education. For me, it is key the way parents are raising their little boys and little girls and also, we need help from media to stop perpetuating gender stereotypes, sexism and shitty ideas regarding women.

I dont want to keep derailing the topic of this thread but in many ways, violence towards women is intrinsically related to "the painting".

[dave94]

I think there is a difference between acknowledging that something is offensive, and being personally offended.

 

Am I personally offended by the alternative cover for AFD.. not really, I am not a woman who has or has been in danger of being raped. Do I think the cover is offensive... yes - of course it will be to some people, it is a dishevelled woman being / recently been raped.

 

My question would be, would you be comfortable wearing a t shirt with that picture of a raped woman  to work for female colleagues to see, or wear it to pick up your kids from school with it for all the little children and other parents to see?

 

maybe some would be fine with it as it is just showing appreciation for an particular album.. I would imagine others might not be ok with it

[Blackstar]

21 hours ago, wasted said:

That’s not how I see it. I don’t think the painting is realistic, it’s presentation of a reality, where women are objectified and raped. But the in the reality presented, there’s a rapist and (i used the word justice) but I think it’s a sense of justice, but it’s more like just a cycle of violence. Hence humans have an appetite for destruction. It’s presentation of a violent culture. This is an opinion or just the artists experience. So I would put both the painting and AFD in the same category as NWA as street knowledge. It brings about awareness of certain parts of life we don’t necessarily experience. 

I think the robots the girl is selling is kind of a layering. The robot rapist can just be seen as human, or future male behaviour. There’s some kind of metaphor. I could almost see the robot as the industry or pimp that sells robots via the girl. But he rapes his girls, just like a record company sells the artist’s records, but also rapes the artist and the fans and media prey or feed off this exploitation sometimes unknowingly as just part of a cycle of abuse. 

I think this is a valid interpretation. @tremolo's was a valid one too. It's an open question why the artist chose to depict the rapist as a robot.

The main point I tried to make was the painting can't be interpreted by taking all its components, e.g. the robot (hence the whole composition) literally, because that way the concept of the painting makes no sense.

Edited July 3, 2018 by Blackstar

[killuridols]

1 hour ago, tremolo said:

I think this thread has run its course.

[dalsh327]

It's sci-fi rape, no different than some graphic forms of anime or what's been in past issues of Heavy Metal magazine.  Nothing about it promotes sexual assault. 

Should all art be white fluffy clouds? 

I was going to post Hitler's paintings to make a point of how someone who did horrible things made such bland paintings, but feel free to Google. 

[killuridols]

 oh my god, this I learned from @Blackstar...

"Godwin's rule of Hitler analogies"...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

[wasted]

3 hours ago, Blackstar said:

I think this is a valid interpretation. @tremolo's was a valid one too. It's an open question why the artist chose to depict the rapist as a robot.

The main point I tried to make was the painting can't be interpreted by taking all its components, e.g. the robot (hence the whole composition) literally, because that way the concept of the painting makes no sense.

What’s the concept of the painting? 

I think in a way the raped girl lookimg kind of sexy is ironic, it’s more a commentary on how a culture sees the girl not a literal presentation of rape is sexy. 

[Blackstar]

1 minute ago, wasted said:

What’s the concept of the painting? 

I think in a way the raped girl lookimg kind of sexy is ironic, it’s more a commentary on how a culture sees the girl not a literal presentation of rape is sexy. 

By "concept" I meant the rape, because if the robot is taken literally (as in a robot can't be a rapist), then there is no rape. But there is rape in the painting, regardless of whatever it might represent as a metaphor etc.

It could be ironic in that way, yes.

[wasted]

3 hours ago, dave94 said:

I think there is a difference between acknowledging that something is offensive, and being personally offended.

 

Am I personally offended by the alternative cover for AFD.. not really, I am not a woman who has or has been in danger of being raped. Do I think the cover is offensive... yes - of course it will be to some people, it is a dishevelled woman being / recently been raped.

 

My question would be, would you be comfortable wearing a t shirt with that picture of a raped woman  to work for female colleagues to see, or wear it to pick up your kids from school with it for all the little children and other parents to see?

 

maybe some would be fine with it as it is just showing appreciation for an particular album.. I would imagine others might not be ok with it

I don’t think anyone should be able to ban it, but if as a culture we don’t think it’s appropriate in certain places that is fine. I don’t want someone to play Kylie’s greatest hits when I’m eating Italian food. 

[wasted]

5 minutes ago, Blackstar said:

By "concept" I meant the rape, because if the robot is taken literally (as in a robot can't be a rapist), then there is no rape. But there is rape in the painting, regardless of whatever it might represent as a metaphor etc.

It could be ironic in that way, yes.

The physical act of rape in reality is  offensive, but a pic of rape is only offensive to those that interpret it as offensive. 

[wasted]

4 hours ago, killuridols said:

Thanks for that info @Scream of the Butterfly 

I know in those places women are abused and it is almost a celebration but I live in Argentina (South America) and even though we are not so bad when it comes to legislation, the cases of violence towards women are really high because that legislation is not effective and in countless opportunities, a woman who's been assigned a panick button, was still murdered by her partner.

So, in my opinion, you dont fix this problem with more useless laws but with education. For me, it is key the way parents are raising their little boys and little girls and also, we need help from media to stop perpetuating gender stereotypes, sexism and shitty ideas regarding women.

I dont want to keep derailing the topic of this thread but in many ways, violence towards women is intrinsically related to "the painting".

Everything is related, but I just don’t see many positive depictions of rape in mainstream tv, movies, media. 

The main cause of rape is physical abuse of young boys. Beating them teaches them dominance is a way to get what you want. Empathy is beaten out of them and they are socio/psychopathic. 

There are also religions that deem certain bahavoours to be condemned to the point where they are deemed whores and deserve to be raped/killed. Honor killings for example. 

In western cultures there are no mainstream institutions promoting rape in these ways. Not overtly. I think there is an understanding that deep addiction to porn or violent sexual images may lead to rape. And the opportunities are at an all time high. But generally casual exposure to violent or sexual images is not abuse that leads directly to violent crimes. It’s deep saturation of individuals in violent imagery that is of concern, not individual images . This combined with little boys being beaten are the real concerns. It’s a recipe for disaster. 

[killuridols]

3 hours ago, dave94 said:

My question would be, would you be comfortable wearing a t shirt with that picture of a raped woman  to work for female colleagues to see, or wear it to pick up your kids from school with it for all the little children and other parents to see?

maybe some would be fine with it as it is just showing appreciation for an particular album.. I would imagine others might not be ok with it

Since clothing and fashion are forms of making statements about who you are, what you stand for or what you dont agree with, I think that wearing this t-shirt is making a personal statement whether about your musical tastes or the message that is being sent through it.

If someone was to wear this to work or to go pick up kids from school, they have to first know there are high chances a big portion of people will not recognize that image as being the cover of a GN'R album.

Even more so, some t-shirt designs have reduced the illustration to the image of the raped girl only and added the "Guns N' Roses was here" spray paint to the wall where she's leaning.

Or this...

Wearing these t-shirts in contexts where people are not familiar with all the stories, justifications, interpretations and what not, is risking yourself to be frowned upon or confronted about it, or who knows, maybe even congratulated for doing it.

I have never seen anyone wearing this t-shirt in the streets or public places but I've seen a few wearing it at the GN'R shows and some rock pubs I have been to.

[killuridols]

8 minutes ago, wasted said:

Everything is related, but I just don’t see many positive depictions of rape in mainstream tv, movies, media. 

The main cause of rape is physical abuse of young boys. Beating them teaches them dominance is a way to get what you want. Empathy is beaten out of them and they are socio/psychopathic. 

The sexist messages in media are mostly subtle and that's how they pass all filters and people normalize them. 

Blunt messages such as this album cover would never make it to mainstream media but on tv, there are still tons of women being shown as sexual objects, wearing little clothes or presented as merely bearers of beauty.

It's 2018 and we still have those silly regressive pageants like Miss Universe or Miss World, making girls compete against each other over who is more beautiful or more gracious, the slimmest body or the longer eyelashes. 

Basically, women are represented as idiots who can only enter competitions about trivial things.... and boys grow up believing all women are superficial, with a main interest in domestic stuff.

I am not sure all rapist men have that kind of backgrounds. Many have it but some others do not. 

I think it could be a combination of factors, mainly something to do with the way that person was raised, grew up, personal experiences and relationship with parents, friends plus an exposure to violence and abuse.

If a boy was exposed to the abuse of his mother by his father (or some other man) and then he watched a movie or a video or an image of women being abused, I have no doubts that boy will connect what he sees at home with what he consumes in media and say "yeah, this is how the world works".

[wasted]

5 minutes ago, killuridols said:

The sexist messages in media are mostly subtle and that's how they pass all filters and people normalize them. 

Blunt messages such as this album cover would never make it to mainstream media but on tv, there are still tons of women being shown as sexual objects, wearing little clothes or presented as merely bearers of beauty.

It's 2018 and we still have those silly regressive pageants like Miss Universe or Miss World, making girls compete against each other over who is more beautiful or more gracious, the slimmest body or the longer eyelashes. 

Basically, women are represented as idiots who can only enter competitions about trivial things.... and boys grow up believing all women are superficial, with a main interest in domestic stuff.

I am not sure all rapist men have that kind of backgrounds. Many have it but some others do not. 

I think it could be a combination of factors, mainly something to do with the way that person was raised, grew up, personal experiences and relationship with parents, friends plus an exposure to violence and abuse.

If a boy was exposed to the abuse of his mother by his father (or some other man) and then he watched a movie or a video or an image of women being abused, I have no doubts that boy will connect what he sees at home with what he consumes in media and say "yeah, this is how the world works".

I accept it’s role as a contributing factor in the broader context. And the part ingrained culture plays. Furthermore I don’t think online galleries of images of sexual violence are healthy. It’s the information overload that is more dangerous. 

Once something is deemed as art or to have some artistic merit it becomes more important to protect the free exchange of ideas, because if we can’t talk it will move to violence. 

I think if culturally we discourage widespread proliferation of rape images, that is the way to go. 

I’m more comfortable with sensitive or difficult images in art galleries, but think the odd provocative image on a t shirt is not a huge problem and should left to the market. If you have a raped women on your t shirt people might think you’rapieceofshit. But I don’t think it would be great if we all wore rape t shirts. 

[wasted]

1 hour ago, tremolo said:

It’s a bit more complex than that.

Our interactions with the world (and with ourselves) is shaped by our early interactions with our parents, father figures, mother figures, how we see other interactions in our surroundings, etc.

There is a misconception that is used a lot: women are abused just because they are women. I think that to anyone with a bit of common sense can throw that reductionism out the window. We are way more complex than that unidimensional caricature that some insist on establishing as a narrative.

Having that out of the way... being physically abused as a kid doesn’t necessarily trigger that kind of behaviour, in fact, it could do the absolute opposite. Even things like breastfeeding a baby can have way more of a negative impact in that department. In fact, the perception that men will have of women (and how to treat them) has more to do with the relationship of kids with their mother during their developing years (since they are born) than with the relationship with their father. But aknowledging that would poke holes in the narrative that women are free of fault and that men are the only source of that fucked up behaviour. It doesn’t end there though, since how parents raise and behave around their kids is linked to their own childhoods... it’s a neverending cycle.

I think I agree with that, I was mainly outlining that exposure to a few nasty images doesn’t make a rapist, it’s more about abuse or a number of factors. Serial killers are often beaten as kids. If you got beaten and saw a few images, I’m going with physical abuse as the real reason. So I think getting up in arms about one image or thinking stamping out every dodgy image you come across is probably ineffective, although I support the intentions behind that. If you actually start applying the rules/logic across the board you have to start shutting down a lot. You probably have to let the culture evolve naturally, through education/awareness, not heavy interference. Don’t put too much blame on images or art, human nature is probably more to blame. Killing each other was around way before Call of Duty. 

Edited July 3, 2018 by wasted