Wow she stood still while someone slashed her throat to drink her blood. That’s commitment.

The stuff they did boggles my mind such as cutting her with thorns, sexual assault. I don’t understand do they think because it’s “art” it isn’t a fucked up thing to do to a person?

so I realize this is probably a controversial take, but is it really sexual assault in this case. She did consent to „everything“ basically

She did not explicitly state that she was OK with being touched sexually. Nor did she say she was OK being cut. She said anything goes but I believe monkey paw rules of language apply here. I would argue that the whole point here is that different people take the “permission” to different levels. I personally would never do anything to someone that I would not want done to myself unless and perhaps not even if they gave explicit permission. Here only implicit permission is given and the audience decided how far it went. Your point might have stood if there was some explicitly stated agreement that asexual acts are ok, but frankly I believe it is clear here that it does count as a violation at minimum.

I dunno. I admire the idealism in your attitude here, but realistically we have to look at the words she herself used: “Instructions: There are 72 objects on the table that one can use on me as desired. Performance: I am the object. During this period I take full responsibility.”

It strikes me that this quite explicitly states that there are no limits. I’m honestly somewhat surprised that she wasn’t more seriously assaulted.

but why do anything like that if she clearly didn’t ask for that. Like if my mate comes over and I say “my es su casa, have free reign of the place” and he immeditaly shits on my couch I’m going to be pissed, like that’s a shitty thing to do, even if I did “technically” say he could, doesn’t mean you should.