Ethel Cain Posts Her D1k Pic On Insta

[Bronco 18,802]

53 minutes ago, hELXIG said:

My hot take on this is get the ****ing 13 year olds OFF the app immediately. Bring back kids spaces online. When I was growing up adults were on social media (before it was called social media) and kids were on kid websites that were moderated. Separate spaces. I'm sick of every single space online having to be kid friendly. I'm a ****ing adult. Let me converse and express like one. We used to be able to but now we can't because there's kids everywhere running rampant with absolutely no adult supervision ruining it for the rest of us

There's never been a time where what you are calling social media e.g. insta/facebook etc weren't accessible by 13 and up. 
That's always been their user base minimum age (ever since Facebook opened up and wasnt just a uni/college thing)

[27monster27 15,260]

5 hours ago, River said:

I find it funny that ya’ll are complaining and worried about the children when in fact GGD is PG13 while you guys are participating in an online orgy in the house of taste threads

like there’s no difference between posting a d!ck pic and posting “i want him in my mouth so bad” with a gif that could have interpreted sexually.

Like look at yourselves first, instead of complaining about someone else.. especially when they are trans, which feels like this is the problem and not the nudity itself to some people…

Just for the context, I had to move a thread “your favorite p-rn star” and none of you thought that it’s a problematic thread….

It's the fact that some of these people are fans of Lady Gaga and they have an issue with nudity. 💀

[TheARTPOPball 1,170]

2 hours ago, elijahfan said:

I don't think there's anything wrong with being exposed with nudity as long as the context isn't sexual. Nudity isn't ****. Then again I'm European, so it might be cultural.

I find thirst traps much more damaging for young people and the way it shapes their minds than an artistic picture of a trans body.

I think they are both just not necessary. Anyone can post their soft dicks in instagram in a photo and claim it to be artistic then. 

Edited Thursday at 02:29 PM by TheARTPOPball

[TheARTPOPball 1,170]

2 hours ago, Ziggy said:

artist posting art, i guess. i mean, i do think there can be a certain disconnect between the face of a pop star being tacked onto genitals and what to many feels like an anonymous face in, say, renaissance paintings. I like the familiarity with which we associate pop artists forces us to confront our discomfort with nudity more so i can see how on that level it could elicit that, "I don't want to see that!" feeling. It's actually a very interesting point of inquiry you bring up because I do think that the shock of it was part of the intent. If i had to guess why now, I'm wondering if it's related to the Supreme Court siding with the Trump administration that conversion therapy bans are unconstitutional and this could be her way of sticking the middle finger to that by so visibly showing her beauty, body, and transness. Hayden is pretty willing to weigh in on politics, after all.

I just think we can bring attention to trans beauty, existence and culture without exposing genitalia on social media. It almost feels retroactive if that was the intent. People don’t realize stuff like this just feeds into opinions that stuff like this is perverse. 
 

on the other hand it just also presents as a pop star doing whatever they can to grab attention. I’d have the same train of thought if Gaga posted her vagina on her instagram, like what exactly are u doing here and why

[lasagna 3,106]

gaga was on ig rubbing her coochie on haus labs palettes back in 2020 i really dont care if ethel shows her cain on ig good for her

Edited Thursday at 04:40 PM by lasagna

[Ziggy 13,105]

2 hours ago, TheARTPOPball said:

I just think we can bring attention to trans beauty, existence and culture without exposing genitalia on social media. It almost feels retroactive if that was the intent. People don’t realize stuff like this just feeds into opinions that stuff like this is perverse. 
 

on the other hand it just also presents as a pop star doing whatever they can to grab attention. I’d have the same train of thought if Gaga posted her vagina on her instagram, like what exactly are u doing here and why

That’s fair! Idk I feel like if you’re going to be called perverse anyway, why entertain respectability? At the end of the day, it’s genitals not sex and in that regard I think it comes down to personal opinion and comfort with seeing it (given how casual and lifestyle the app is) which like you said is by nature going to cause conversation which whatever the meaning behind doing it was part of the intent. Personally, I scrolled right past it and didn’t even notice until this thread pointed it out 

[Keeo 506]

I saw it and thought she was wearing printed underwear with male genitals on it… did notttt realise that it was real. Hmm I’m really not sure IG is the place for this tbh.

[Bronco 18,802]

I feel like people are missing the key bit of information that unexpected sharing of NSFW images can:

1. Be triggering for some people

2. Get people into trouble. If a teen (who are on social media & follow Ethel Cain on social media) was scrolling instagram within eyesite of a helicopter parent, do you think defending it as "art" would prevent that person being punished by the parent? And we realise that some of those parents could be abusive? 

[elijahfan 27,144]

3 hours ago, TheARTPOPball said:

I think they are both just not necessary. Anyone can post their soft dicks in instagram in a photo and claim it to be artistic then. 

Ethel's picture isn't gratuitous exhibitionism, there's nothing sexual or indecent about it. Plus, she posted it in the context of Trans Visibility Day.

But of course I'm able to read the room: in the society we currently live in, there's no doubt she posted it to provoke and start a conversation. Mission accomplished.

Edited Thursday at 06:00 PM by elijahfan

[Ladle Ghoulash 39,043]

Normalize whipping it out.

[llemesm 1,846]

I love this. Radical trans visibility! 

[Jester 6,385]

To the people saying there's nothing sexual about it. There's nothing artistic or clever either. It's just vulgar, inappropriate, and just bad for the trans community in general.

Trans visibility lol? How's this gonna help? Radicalise the opposite side even more? When they already accuse trans people to be sexual freaks and now an actual psycho pulls out their **** in public. 

[nATAH 54,149]

1 hour ago, Bronco said:

I feel like people are missing the key bit of information that unexpected sharing of NSFW images can:

1. Be triggering for some people

2. Get people into trouble. If a teen (who are on social media & follow Ethel Cain on social media) was scrolling instagram within eyesite of a helicopter parent, do you think defending it as "art" would prevent that person being punished by the parent? And we realise that some of those parents could be abusive? 

+1, nudity doesn't bother me when i'm in a consensual space for it

however social media algorithms do not ask us what we want on our feeds, they're automatically generated by our habits and as someone who doesn't like nudity (or even thirst traps) on my feeds, i'm not feeling this

[weed 77,378]

Love it. A leader. 

Followed her on IG now, wasn't up top through google.. sabotage. 

[RaveMonster 465]

3 hours ago, Jester said:

To the people saying there's nothing sexual about it. There's nothing artistic or clever either. It's just vulgar, inappropriate, and just bad for the trans community in general.

Trans visibility lol? How's this gonna help? Radicalise the opposite side even more? When they already accuse trans people to be sexual freaks and now an actual psycho pulls out their **** in public. 

Trans visibility isn’t about making trans people digestible.
 

Also who are you to say someone’s body is vulgar? She’s not performing anything sexual or even hard in this photo. You have some weird issue with a naked body and that’s on you. This isn’t a public park, it’s her social media.