Consent makes a difference.

In my last post, I describe (and link) my nullification, and the controversial events that were part of the greater work. I of course mean the cannibalism, in which I and some close friends consumed my removed flesh.

The first meat I've eaten in years. "But Vivian, aren't you vegan?" Aha.

I think the "no animals or animal products" definition of veganism is shortsighted and obfuscates the purpose. I believe that fundamentally, it's about exploitation—my having given explicit, uncoerced consent firmly places it within the ethical bounds of a vegan lifestyle. While most dictionaries won't bother with this nuance, by my interpretation, and that of many vegans I have talked to, this act has not put me afoul of my personal values.

I've gotten into some social trouble over the sharing of media pertaining to this work. I've come to regret some of the (lack of) pretext under which I presented it, but some of the response was still curious to me. I presented the food pic, with the main component affectionately labeled as "rocky mountain midwest oysters". Some didn't recognize the phrase (thinking they were actual oysters), and some did and thought them bull testicles. When I disclosed they were in fact my testicles, there was uproar. In what way did adding context of consent make it controversial? This was my challenge. It was met with several blockings, two days of divided moderator deliberation in the space, and an eventual 24-hour muting and removal of media. I can respect the individuals who didn't want to be challenged from within their safe spaces. But all the same, despite its surface shock value, I stand by the ethical integrity of all acts performed as part of this art piece, including the sharing and consumption of consenting flesh.