I guess I can take a stab: the artist’s use of the “marriage” and “spouse” verbiage is probably the weakest evidence in the post for the conclusion that the relationship with the dog is sexual, with the more compelling evidence including Gossiaux talking about french kissing the dog, describing an intention to portray the dog in a way that’s open to the interpretation of sexuality, describing trying to depict the dog’s “wet dream” etc. So picking on the points you did and calling the post’s conclusion a stretch might read like attacking a strawman—the conclusion isn’t actually based on those (weak) points.
I’m fine with being disagreed with, but can I get someone to explain which part of what I said is so disagreeable?
I guess I can take a stab: the artist’s use of the “marriage” and “spouse” verbiage is probably the weakest evidence in the post for the conclusion that the relationship with the dog is sexual, with the more compelling evidence including Gossiaux talking about french kissing the dog, describing an intention to portray the dog in a way that’s open to the interpretation of sexuality, describing trying to depict the dog’s “wet dream” etc. So picking on the points you did and calling the post’s conclusion a stretch might read like attacking a strawman—the conclusion isn’t actually based on those (weak) points.