Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
100 Purchase Purchased Download Purchase Soon
549 KB ZIP File. Includes PNG
View Attachments
.:.:Spirit Day:.:. (2012).png
554 KB
Add Your Rating! Thanks for Rating! Change Your Rating


Submitted on
October 19, 2012
Image Size
1.2 MB


2,030 (who?)


Creative Commons License
Some rights reserved. This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.
.:.:Spirit Day:.:. (2012) by Akira035 .:.:Spirit Day:.:. (2012) by Akira035
:bulletred:NOTE: I understand there's people who may disagree with this, but I'd like to ask for some respect. You can voice out your opinion whichever it is, but there's always a nicer way to say things. Please don't be violent or disrespectful and try not to offend others - this deviation is, after all, a call for tolerance. Don't feed the trolls who only try to encourage pointless fights and answer politely and respectfully if you don't agree with someone. Thank you.:bulletred:

EDIT: OMFG! I went to sleep after uploading this and now I wake up to +1k :+fav:'s and 47 new comments! :love: Thanks SO much for all the feedback, you've definitely made my day! It means a lot to me, really! :happycry: You guys are AWESOME! :heart: :tighthug:

EDIT 2, PLEASE READ: I've noticed that there's been confusion with the meaning of the message I wanted to transmit. I DO NOT support pedophilia or zoophilia. This message only regards to homosexual, bisexual and transgender people. I only support love with sexual implications between people, no matter origin, gender, beliefs, etc., as long as they are mature enough to make decisions freely and on their own judgement.

"Spirit Day is an international event to raise awareness of bullying and help prevent it in all forms. The day was started in 2010 as a response to the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth who took their lives due to bullying. To get involved, paint your avatar purple, show support for your fellow deviants, spread the word, and submit your artwork to the gallery below to honor Spirit Day!"

This is my contribution to Spirit Day. Just yesterday I didn't even know of its existence because it hasn't been spread to my country (yet, at least), but I saw the ad today in DA and couldn't help but share my view of this. I don't usually do these kind of things, but it just came out of my very soul.

I took the quote and message from a T-shirt I found a while ago, and I thought it fit just perfectly. Here's the original reference: [link]

Yeah, I know that I didn't include bisexual and transgender people, but I'm so badass that I didn't notice it till the definitive sketch was made, and I was too lazy to add it. I also thought that it would look too over-elaborated and wouldn't have the same impact, so I decided to leave it this way. Don't feel excluded if you are either bisexual or transgender!


Brushes/Textures by: :iconalexdachshund: & :iconaheria:

Add a Comment:
i really agree with you :)
ZlayZlay Featured By Owner Jan 26, 2014  Student General Artist
Im going to look up spirit day now...
Goobernoob Featured By Owner Nov 19, 2013
You people... you who support homosexuality or bisexuality, yet turn around and attack those who engage in what has been labelled as "pedophilia" and bestiality... you sicken me the worst of all.

The basis of your claim is "love knows no boundaries"... yet you turn around and attack those who would love people significantly older/younger than them, or those who would love other living beings known as "animals".

What I want to know: what kind of hypocrisy is this.

Love is love, after all: as nothing can't not be itself, everyone must concede this point. What I want to know is why do the homosexuals and bisexuals get what they want, yet we so-called "pedophiliacs" and the "zoophiliacs" get dragged to court and/or tossed in jail.

I personally am not a (so-called) "zoophiliac". I am not one, as I am not interested in animals, and, as far as I know, no member of any other species has a romantic interest in me. A colleague - a close friend, in this case - of mine is interested in his lovely Golden Retriever, though. He and his dog love each other dearly, and anyone who knew them would know this. They've been the closest of companions for the past 8 years, and the two of them couldn't be closer. He wants to take their relationship to the next level, and Luxa has no objection: they've performed various acts of sexual intimacy that I won't describe for safer reading.

He's afraid of telling others due to the social repercussions, though. The only reason that he's told me - as well as a few select others - is because we can keep our mouths shut.

This isn't fair. At all. 

He would be condemned for loving an "animal" - which is really just another living creature, just like us - while people everywhere cry out for the acceptance for gays and lesbians and bisexuals? This is sickening.

As stated before, I am not a so-called "zoophiliac". What I am, though, is a so-called "pedophile".

That's right. I'm 32 years old, and I'm in love with a 15-year old girl. She loves me, too. As far as other people know, our relationship is merely that of a teacher and student. The reason that we must hide this? The fact that I would probably get thrown in jail and she would become the talk of the town. I can't afford to get tossed in jail, obviously, and no 15 year-old girl would be able to handle becoming the subject of glares and giggles and gossip. The fact that she would become "legal" at the age of 18 offers paltry comfort for us both. We'd still become the talk of the town. Why? Because people, who somehow manage to tolerate homosexuality and bisexuality, cannot handle the fact that love transcends all boundaries and the fact that people of different ages can, in fact, fall in love with each other.

Again, not fair. At all.

Normally, I would have passed something like this by without making a comment. Gotten somewhat irritated, but still would have left it alone. Then I read the second Edit. It was then that I had to speak out.

Bloody hypocrites, the lot of you.
Akira035 Featured By Owner Nov 20, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Have you read the full description? 

"I only support love with sexual implications between people, no matter origin, gender, beliefs, etc., as long as they are mature enough to make decisions freely and on their own judgement."

I think that's not being an hypocrite, it's just having some clue about morality and some defined principles. I think it's obvious that the sentence must be bind to some of them. Have you heard about the difference between freedom and licentiousness? It's the same thing.

First off, and animal isn't a rational being. So I think it's obvious it isn't at the same level as a human, so it cannot have responsabilities the same way a human can. Therefore, it really cannot decide. And love (the romantic and sexual one I mean) must be something people decide freely and on their own judgement. If they have no judgement, it really isn't fair.

I your case it isn't so bad because well, she isn't a small child. In my country it's actually legal for an adult to have a relationship with a +13 year-old-child. But a small child isn't mature enough to decide on their own, even teenagers in my opinion. She is not, no matter how "mature" you might say she is. Children are easy to trick because they lack experience, and until they're old enough to be considered adults they need protection. An adult cannot have advantage of them, even if they have no actual bad intentions. It's not bad between kids because they're that, just kids. But between a child and an adult it's different. The adult has experience and knows the implications of what they're doing (or at least they should), but the child doesn't. The adult must know it and it's their fault if they doesn't, but a child isn't ready to take such responsibility.

And well, on a personal side, I think that romantic love also depends on interests and inquisitiveness which depend on age. I mean, a 15 year-old certainly isn't at the same intellectual stage a 30-year-old is. Not beucase she is stupid or anything, it's just because she's young, she lacks experience and therefore she can't be mature. It's impossible for her to be at the same stage as a 30-year-old, even if she's mature for her age. And well, if that 30-year-old is at the same maturity stage as a 15-year-old, well, I think we got a problem here. An adult isn't supposed to have the same interests and concerns as a teenager, he's supposed to have evolved by then. If they haven't, well, it's really their problem. But not the child's.

I'm not a hypocrite, but I think you've left clear you're such a simplistic person. Things are never that easy, and more when you're talking about people's rights.
Goobernoob Featured By Owner Nov 20, 2013
Some clue of morality and defined principles...? You misunderstand me. I'm not saying that you have no "morality" or "principles". What I am saying is that you completely ignore them when something that you're already prejudiced against comes up. You say that "Love has no limits," then immediately place a disclaimer in your post that, for all intents and purposes, sets limits on love. If that doesn't constitute hypocrisy, then I really don't know what does. At least pick a message that is more truthful and congruent with what you really believe, if nothing else.

(Granted, I'll admit that I have biases. The phrase "Love has no limits" should permit any and all kinds of love. I personally disagree with non-consensual love [A.K.A. rape] and promiscuity while in a marriage/relationship [A.K.A. infidelity]. However, I have good reason for doing so. Sexual harassment and/or rape isn't really love. It's self-indulgent and doesn't care about the other party at all. That's lust. I would also argue that infidelity is a lack of love. You're betraying somebody that you have professed to love in order to have a sexual relationship with somebody else. That's lust - as well as being just plain inexcusable. Your reasons for disagreeing with a relationship between adults and minors or humans and "animals" are faulty, as I'm about to prove.)

(Also, for my twenty cents on the matter, I believe that freedom and licentiousness are, for the most part, completely unrelated. Freedom is the power/right to act (or speak or think) as one wants without hindrance or restraint. Licentiousness is just plain lewdness.)

First off, nobody can really say that animals "aren't rational beings". Many animals are actually rather clever, and have keener mental processes than some humans. All that really separates us is a definition of species. Even if this wasn't true, by your logic of "rationality", a human shouldn't have any more right to fall in love with a human with a mental disorder anymore than they would an animal. They aren't in full possession of their rationality, so they can't be trusted to properly judge something like that. Love, however, is free, and so humans are allowed to fall in love with other humans even if they aren't mentally stable... while they aren't allowed to fall for their beloved pet dogs, who are just as rational - if not more so - as the aforementioned mentally unstable humans.

Also, I'd argue that your argument of "maturity between adults and children" is faulty. By that logic, two children actually shouldn't be able to have a relationship, because even if they're both just kids, they still don't realize the full extent and ramifications of their actions. As love is free, then I believe that anybody should be able to act on their feelings as long as said feeling are mutual. would agree that children and teenagers should be kept away from adults that would take advantage of them, but you have no way of knowing which adults would end up doing so. I can say that I have no intent of harming or taking advantage of the girl who I love, but I can't be proven right or wrong. Prohibiting all adults from having relationships with people who have "significant age differences" from them because they fear that some adults would take advantage of them is like the (U.S.) government sending all of the Japanese to concentration camps during World War II because of what some of their people had done and what the rest might do. It simply isn't right.

You say that you're not a hypocrite, but that you think that I've "left it clear that [I'm] such a simplistic person". As I've probably gotten across in this response, I reaffirm my statement that you are a person who professes certain ideals, but fails to live up to them (by accident, if not by design). I know that things such as right aren't so "simple", but I'm not making them simple. I'm simply (hah, simply) pointing out the hypocrisy behind the slogan that you're using and using reason in my defense of what's right - or what should be right. You're misrepresenting my side when you do hat.

(Please don't take this as offensive, by the way. I may occasionally use strong language, but I'm simply trying to get my point across - although I really am irritated by how one group gets their way and the others don't. Morality here seems to be based off of what most people like. Either way, though, you're one of the more intelligent people I've discussed this with. Most just blast me with insults and say that my friends and I are "disgusting." For not doing so, I thank you.)
Akira035 Featured By Owner Nov 21, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Okay, so first off I must recognise that the slogan wasn't the best one to pick because it's crystal clear that it can lead to misunderstandings. In my defense though, I must say that this is such a complicated topic to summarize it on a single sentence, and I just did it wrong - it wasn't my intention. So I agree with you on that and I give my sincerest apologies for it.

So well, you see I'm not a native English-speaker. I looked up licentiousness on an English dictionary and it hasn't got the exact same meaning it has in my language, so I'll try to explain it as well as I can. (Forgive me if I don't make myself clear, it's difficult to talk of complicated matters in another language).
So, freedom isn't exactly " power/right to act (or speak or think) as one wants without hindrance or restraint". Actually, freedom needs to have restraints. If it didn't, nothing would stop one person to stomp onto another one and break their rights. In that case, that's no longer freedom but licentiousness (or "libertinaje" as we say in Spanish). As you see, the line which separates them is really thin and is usually unnoticed, but makes such a huge difference. One guarantees every person's rights and duties in a constructive manner, so it allows us to live in an legal, modern society which permits every single one of us to seek happiness freely; while the other has a destructive background and leads to a tyranny where only the strong rule. "Your freedom ends where mine begins", as Herbert Spencer once said.
I was trying to do a parallelism between those two words and the fact we're discussing now. I strongly believe everything must have its limits, love included. In my piece I wanted to transmit that I disagreed with the limits which are now set in most of the world - where only a woman and a man can love each other. I think that the limit should be in a place where the overview has more benefits to the group than harm. Which is, to me, that only two people who are in a situation of equality can love without harming themselves (one of them or both) in some way. That means two grown-up people (or if they're teens, we could say at the same maturity level or similar) who are able to make decisions on their own judgement with the higher rate of freedom possible - absolute freedom. Which definitely means no licentiousness.

About animals, they are not rational beings as we humans are, scientifically talking. Rationatily is a quality which allows gradation, as intelligence does. An animal (for example, superior Primates) can have what is often called "limited rationality", which allows them to think, evaluate, understand and act to satisfy some objective or purpose, as long as they are simple ideas. However, no studies have been able to prove any superior rationality traces on animals. They cannot understand abstract ideas and cannot develop superior reasoning. If someday scientific studies show me otherwise I'll have to reconsider my words, but that hasn't happened yet. Therefore, in a practical (and not philosophical) background I assume that animals are not rational beings, or at least not the same way humans are. It breaks the equality and cannot work out, for now. However, I'm open to new unexpected info about the topic because neuropsychology is a growing branch and there are still many things that we don't know.
About severe mentally ill people, it really is a delicate matter and I must admit I have never thought about it profusely, so I'll refrain from stating anything. I'd probably be biased now by the fact that they're still humans, Human Rights and all.

And no, I don't think the maturity matter I said earlier is faulty. At all. And the Japanese example isn't remotely similar to this. You can take advantage of someone without bad intentions. You can manipulate them, even unknowingly, and make them do things they wouldn't do with the best intentions. People interact with each other, and cause an effect on others. The fact of hand over to a child a responsability they cannot take is the wrong part. They're not ready to decide. And as they aren't, there's a huge risk their decision will be heavily influenced by someone who isn't their legal guardian.
This can actually happen to anyone, but there's a difference - an adult is responsible of their actions while a child isn't. In an adult the risk of being taken care advantadge of is lesser, and precisely their ability to decide comes from the fact that they have enough experience to decide on their own. And if an adult is tricked, they'll have part of the responsability. A child won't. 

I don't know if I'm explaining myself just fine, it's really difficult to explain even in my native language. But I assure you that I'm really sure of my ideals and I sincerely live up to them. I hope I have managed to make clear that any apparent hypocritical fractions of my speech are not due to true hypocrisy, but a sole problem of language. I try really hard to be coherent, so I don't want to be misunderstood.
Goobernoob Featured By Owner Nov 21, 2013
Hmmm... well, as you've apologized for the faulty slogan, I believe that you can be pardoned. Also, taking into consideration your difficulty with the English language, I offer my sincerest apologies for any confusion you may have had.

This is quite tragic, though: it seems that we've already reached the vicious circle of "agreeing to disagree". We both have different definitions of the same terms. For example, you've defined animals as not being rational. However, based off of the views that I've developed based on the equality-based treatment that I've seen people give animals and various performed studies that (at least certain) animals are close to being - if not just - as rational as humans. We also seem to have differences in what we believe a child can and can't handle in relation to people who are either the same age or are older than him/her.

And so, I believe that, to avoid frustration and possible flaming, we should agree to disagree. We won't be able to convince each other of our core beliefs that decide how we view the rest of the world, so there is no point in continuing to argue.

Does that sound reasonable?
Akira035 Featured By Owner Nov 22, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Well, I based the animal part on purely scientific data, which I consider the most effective method to avoid faulty arguments when you're talking of objective knowledge. If we believe in what we just see subjectively it's much easier to miss the point, but that's just my opinion I guess. Love itself and justice aren't in the same footing, so those topics require a different way to deal with them. It's quite more difficult not to make reasoning mistakes when you cannot reach a purely factual conclusion.
About children, well, I base my opinion on arguments given after years and years of law development. Law is an evolving and human thing, I know, but it's such a complicated topic actually. It really requires a lot of thought. 

I shall agree with you there. I don't think we'll be able to reach an actual consensus, so it's better if we just drop it here. I must say this is one of the first times on my short life I've managed to discuss such a delicate matter in a honest and civilised way, people usually end up flaming when you don't agree with them. Most don't even try to give proper arguments to back up their beliefs.

Thank you for the debate, it was a nice talk. Have a nice day!
Goobernoob Featured By Owner Nov 22, 2013
You as well. It was an honor.
Akira035 Featured By Owner Nov 21, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
I forgot about the last part. Two children are still in a relationship of equality, since they're both at a similar maturity stage and are on the same legal situation, too. It's still applicable to 17-18-19 year old couples with small age gaps, since they still obey to the first principle. So no, I don't think it's faulty. It's still logical to me.
Add a Comment: