/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>7049049
Yes, art can have sex and soul. Sex is arguably the most fundamental human instinct, rivaled only by fear of death, and maybe love. However, the dichotomy we perceive between sex and love is illusory, and responsible for much of the suffering that happens externally in the world, and internally in our minds. If you can see love as an extension of sex, you'll purify your connection to sex and sex itself. Look anywhere, especially on this site, and you'll see people who lack this understanding. They're slaves to sexual urges with no presence of love. That's basically what coom is.
The influence of sex (attraction, reproduction, and the subsequent social hierarchies) permeate ubiquitously. Its not just being horny, but also the desire to be attractive, or the suffering you endure from the lack thereof. Its also why you fantasize about a partner who understands you perfectly yet is unlike you. And more. Alternatively, love may come from sex, but sex is not equal to love. Sex also gives us dynamics in the negative, like a fetish built upon humiliation, or something alien.
For all these reasons, sex in art can have soul. Did you expect that the foremost human desire would have no depth, and no emotion? Sex is one facet of the human experience, and just like any other (survival, need for status, joy and depression) it can be explored, exercised, twisted and corrupted, or a source of joy and connection.
All of this paints a picture that is rarely paid attention to. Sex is suppressed, taboo, and inappropriate — even though its rooted in our genesis, dominates our interactions, and paves the way for our human connections. Like another anon said, coom cannot have soul, because then it wouldn't be coom. But art can have sex and soul, and for everyone's sexual minds to return to health and reason, it must. And it must be engaged with safely and sanely. Anything that we suppress will only come back ugly and neglected. Explore, don't suppress. That's art.