• Lady Arrakis says:

    I do enjoy artistic approach to fetish and introducting it to non fetish people in tasteful and original manner, but dragging children (despite they used child or small adult person for the movie) I find disturbing.

  • Dana says:

    I have to concur with Lady A. in that imposing ones sexual aesthetic on kids is as bad as imposing religion on them. However, I think that is a subtext point of the piece, that those who seek to oppress strive to make that oppression perceived as the norm so it is not resisted.

    On a different level, you could just see it as a nice little bit of “1950’s household” fetish with rubber outfits, just without the methamphetamine, booze and unfiltered cigarettes.

  • Kim K says:

    Even though i technically agreewith both Dana and Lady A, i have yet another possble interpretation to it.

    If you go away from viewing rubber as sensual or even erotic, then what can it also stand for, especially when being fully covering?
    Built-in bonage, Dominant person, De-personalization, and Alienation.
    The work’s name is “Seperation”.
    I think that goes well with Alienation, like, the family is there, close, but yet, seperate, alien for eachother.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


Subscribe to RSS Feed


Subscribe via e-mail:


By Date
By Topic