Usually, I prefer to let other Kiwis dissect a cow for my own amusement, but this one struck me as interesting because I understand quite well the sphere that Fanny has ingratiated herself from her first forays into the internet. This sphere, the art sphere, is one rife with left wingers and apolitical types who follow the crowd and don't kick up dust in general.
In this sphere, representation is paramount.
Perusing the
SJW Art and Extremes and the
Cartoon Industry threads (hell, one glance at BookTok or BookTwitter is enough) is a great way to see what the average concept of representation is, but the core sentiment they all agree with is this:
art should reflect reality, and
representation is important because art impacts people in meaningful ways. That's why there's such a major push to include trannies in everything or make unfunny remakes
with girls! and whatnot, because the idea is that representation in art is a good thing and something one should strive for even if it's just a soulless marketing ploy à la
Dustborn.
But Fanny and her ilk are therefore in a bind: if art influences reality, and people are shaped by the art they see, what does that imply of their twisted pornography? Suddenly, they attempt to retreat into what I call the "Slasher Excuse": if slasher films can exist and not create slashers, why can't their art exist and not create child-murdering puppy rapists? Are you going to try and imply Eli Roth supports cannibalism when he made Green Inferno? Should we have Clive Barker thrown into a pool of sharks?
This is, obviously, a hot load of shit, because anyone who has done actual studies of media and storytelling will understand that this is where
framing comes into play. Think about Black Panther vs. Coal Black and de Sebben Dwarfs; one was widely loved (
even if enjoying MCU is a sign of brain damage) and the other is panned by critics and comes with a warning label at the start of it. Both depict black people, but we can see that framing makes a huge difference in reception. This is not a new concept with anyone who is remotely familiar with the kind of media analysis even tweens can comprehend.
Fanny and her buddies frame all of the depraved things that they are into in positive and erotic lights. Polarka, Garrett, Christianna, Devi/XXXEAVEN, Connor the Crap Connosseur and others I'm in the process of investigating - they are all guilty of depicting inherently damaging and negative things as fun, sexy and acceptable, and any critics are silenced by claims of "kinkshaming" and "suppression of queer sexuality." OK, well,
Slasher films never tried to imply you were meant to root for Freddy or Jason. Read her CyLynn comics and try to tell me she's approaching CyLynn with the sensibilities of Wes Craven.
(Sometimes they also claim those who object to their works are bad at 'media literacy' and 'can't read' and try to suggest that those with qualms are just
too stupid to understand the hidden depths in their works. We're not exactly talking about works akin to Shelley, Plath or Steinbeck, here - some of you eat
literal actual shit.)
It is disingenuous and, honestly, fucking retarded that Fanny acts as if her art exists purely in a vacuum that doesn't affect anyone,
especially when other people are being lured into dark kinks like she has through her art and tell her this directly.
In times like these, I wish I were a cowtipper, because I'd love to ask: h
ow come the NPDs and ASPDs can feel represented by your art, but you don't think those with criminal intentions may feel represented as well? Where does one end, and the other begin?
How much personal responsibility is an artist required, and if it's none, how can you ever complain that anyone is obligated to depict any kind of representation?
I believe Fanny is, secretly, more centrist or even right wing than she wishes to let on; it wouldn't surprise me if she actually finds her leftist cohorts tiresome and obnoxious, but few conservatives are eager to hang out with shit-eating, wife-raping ex-trannies, so she's stuck with her lot for now.