there is, in fact, a “platonic explanation for this” if you’re not a coward
its so fun to see the diversity of tags on this ranging from “they’re literally just standing next to each other” to “deep bonds dont have to be romantic/sexual!” to “yeah friends can fuck nasty, platonically. coward.” we’re all so correct, there are, in fact, a million platonic explanations for this
hannibal had to try and eat will in italy because that’s what worshippers do during communion–they eat the flesh and drink the blood of their god and it is the highest form of love of devotion they can offer
see i think what people get caught up in is going “oh this and that are fetish art……hey did you know x thing is a fetish…pretty crazy right…..this piece of art is actually a fetish for the artist……..” and like. see the problem is thinking that devalues the art. i don’t think something being a fetish or sexual in nature or whatever actually detracts from any meaning or emotional weight something could have. i don’t think “horny” is a worthless or meaningless emotion and i don’t see why exploring it in art is any different from “sadness” or “happiness” or “anger”. does that make sense? im just sayin we should examine why we view sexuality as inherently detracting/meaning less in art than other things
ALT
