#A Culture of Abuse

[lgbtlunaverse]

The world exists in such a baffling state of simultaneous sex-aversion and sex-hegemony. Every social platform on the internet is trying to banish sex workers to the shadow realm but I can't post a tweet without at least two bots replying P U S S Y I N B I O. People are self-censoring sex to seggs and $3× but every other ad you see is still filled with half-naked women. Rightwingers want queer people arrested for so much as existing in the same postal code as a child and are also drumming up a moral panic about how teenage boys aren't getting laid enough. I feel like I'm losing my mind.

[emotionaleating]

pls don’t flirt with me i want to be nonchalant so bad but i unfortunately crave connection so intensely that i will give you my entire soul and forgive you over and over until i’ve lost myself completely and feel like i’m drowning

[teaboot]

When I was a kid, I regularly lost reading privileges for "having an attitude" and "acting out".

It wasn't as simple as being told not to read during other activities- one of the first times it happened, I remember being six years old, watching my stepfather pull fistfuls of books off my bookshelf and throw them to the floor in a heaping mess while I cried and asked him to stop.

It was weird. Every other adult I knew described me as exceptionally well-behaved, but at home, it was the opposite, and it was blamed on "learning bad habits from that shit you're reading".

Because I couldn't read at home, I spent all my free time at school in the library, reading with my friends.

When I grew up and moved away, I realized that my family life was toxic and abusive, and the "attitudes" I was being punished for were standing up for myself, standing up for my younger siblings, and resisting actual, real-life psychological abuse. Because I'd learned from what I'd read that my family wasn't normal, not like my parents said it was, and in my stories, the heroes were the people who spoke out when it was hard to.

It is insane to me that there are students right now who can't access books. It is insane that books are being outlawed. It is perverse that we are stealing away an entire generation's ability to contextualize their lives, to learn about the world around them, to develop critical thinking skills and express themselves and feel connected to the world or escape from it, whatever and whenever and however they need.

That is not how you raise a compassionate, thoughtful, powerful society.

That's how you process cattle.

It's fucking disgusting.

[msclaritea]

Check out this thread at Thread Reader App. https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1677669822388219904.html

"Since 1970, Rupert Murdoch's toxic Sun had published images of topless 'glamour models' on Page 3.

In 1983, Sam Fox became the youngest Page 3 model in The Sun, when aged just 16 she first featured topless with the headline 'Sam, 16, Quits A-Levels for Ooh-Levels'.

It wasn't until 2003, with the passing of the Sexual Offences Act, that the minimum age for women posing on Page 3 was raised to 18.

The Sun ceased publishing topless Page 3 images in Ireland edition in 2013, in the UK in 2015, & on its website in 2017. https://t.co/r27ZiZWrd3Page3.com

Katie Price - Latest news and gossip - The SunKatie Price has been known on the celebrity circuit for many years, starting out her career as a glamour model…http://Page3.com

Although feminists had for many years criticized the feature, The Sun had always vigorously defended Page 3.

The Sun introduced the feature in 1970, which boosted its readership & prompted the Mirror, Sunday People, & Star to begin featuring topless models on their own Page 3.

Page 3's mainly male defenders portrayed it as 'a harmless British cultural tradition', but it drew criticism both from conservatives, who tended to view it as soft porn inappropriate for inclusion in newspapers, & feminists, who argued it objectified women & perpetuated sexism.

Some politicians—notably Labour's Clare Short, Harriet Harman, & Stella Creasy, LibDem Lynne Featherstone, & Caroline Lucas—made efforts to have Page 3 removed, although other politicians eg Nick Clegg & Ed Vaizey, expressed concern that such a ban would compromise press freedom.

The Sun vigorously defended the feature. Typically representing Page 3's critics as prudes, spoilsports, or ideologues, it also routinely portrayed female critics as physically unattractive and jealous of its Page 3 girls.

When Clare Short in 1986 tried to introduce a bill banning topless models from British newspapers, The Sun ran a "Stop Crazy Clare" campaign, distributing free car stickers, calling Short a "killjoy", printing unflattering images of her.

The grotesque must-read of the yearNick Davies' book about media bosses making MPs and celebrities pander to them is essential reading for the politically informed.

The Sun polled readers on whether they preferred to see Short's face or the back of a bus. Murdoch's News of the World ran bogus stories suggesting Short was involved with porn, tried to buy old photos of her as a 20-year-old in a nightdress, & published other smear stories.

"Sun turns on 'killjoy' Short in Page 3 row

The Sun has launched a scathing personal attack on Labour MP Clare Short, branding her a 'killjoy' and 'fat and jealous' of its Page 3 girls, writes Ciar Byrne."

Rebekah Brooks was reported to be against Page 3, & was expected to terminate it when she became editor in 2003. Upon assuming her editorship, she defended it, calling its models "intelligent, vibrant young women who appear in The Sun out of choice & because they enjoy the job".

When Clare Short stated in a 2004 interview that she wanted to "take the pornography out of our press", saying "I'd love to ban [Page 3 because it] degrades women and our country", Brooks targeted Short with a "Hands Off Page 3" campaign.

Sun turns on 'killjoy' Short in Page 3 row

The Sun has launched a scathing personal attack on Labour MP Clare Short, branding her a 'killjoy' and 'fat and jealous' of its Page 3 girls, writes Ciar Byrne.

The Sun's campaign included printing an image of Short's face superimposed on a topless woman's body, calling Short "fat and jealous", and parking a double-decker bus with a delegation of Page 3 models outside Short's home.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/mar/10/anti-page-3-the-sun-campaigner

Sun turns on 'killjoy' Short in Page 3 rowThe Sun has launched a scathing personal attack on Labour MP Clare Short, branding her a 'killjoy' and 'fat and jealous' of its Page 3 girls, writes Ciar Byrne.https://www.theguardian.com/media/2004/jan/14/pressandpublishing.politicsandthemedia

The Sun also called Harriet Harman a "feminist fanatic" and Featherstone a "battleaxe" for their opposition to Page 3.

In February 2012, the #Leveson Inquiry heard arguments for and against Page 3.

Women's advocacy groups argued that Page 3 demeaned women and promoted sexist attitudes, but Sun editor Dominic Mohan called the feature an "innocuous British institution" that had become "part of British society".

Sun editor defends Page ThreeThe editor of The Sun newspaper, Dominic Mohan, has defended the continued use of topless pictures on page three.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/16927925

Lucy-Anne Holmes began campaigning against Page 3 after noticing during the 2012 Summer Olympics that the largest photograph of a woman in the nation's best-selling newspaper was not of an Olympic athlete but of "a young woman in her knickers".

No More Page 3 campaigner Lucy-Anne Holmes on her battle with the SunKira Cochrane: First offended by the newspaper's topless models at the age of 11, she wants Rupert Murdoch to remove the featurehttps://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/mar/10/anti-page-3-the-sun-campaigner

The campaign got 240K signatures & support from trade unions, universities, charities, women's advocacy groups & 140+ MPs.

It sponsored two women's football teams, Nottingham Forest WFC & Cheltenham Town LFC, who played with the "No More Page 3" logos.

No More Page 3 campaigners sponsor another women's football teamNotts Forest Ladies support call for Sun to end topless photoshttps://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2014/feb/19/page-3-sun

In 2012, Lynne Featherstone called for a ban claiming it contributed to domestic violence against women. Then–deputy PM Nick Clegg said "If you don't like it, don't buy it, you don't want to have a moral policeman or woman in Whitehall telling people what they can & can't see".

Then–prime minister David Cameron also declined to support a ban on Page 3, stating during an interview with BBC Radio 4's Woman's Hour: "This is an area where we should leave it to consumers to decide, rather than to regulators".

Cameron refuses to back ban on Sun's Page 3 topless imagesPM says it is up to consumers to decide whether to buy the Sun, as he sets out plans for greater regulation of online pornographyhttps://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/jul/22/cameron-no-ban-sun-page-3

After becoming The Sun's editor in 2013, David Dinsmore confirmed he would continue printing photographs of topless models, calling it "a good way of selling newspapers".

On 20th January, 2015, Murdoch's Times reported that the tabloid was "quietly dropping" Page 3.

But on 22 January, The Sun appeared to change course, publishing a Page 3 image of a winking model with her breasts fully exposed and a caption mocking those who had commented on the end of the feature. The Sun did not feature Page 3 thereafter.

In a TV debate with Harman & Germaine Greer, Harman said: "In 100 years' time, if you look back at the newspapers of this country, & you see women standing in their knickers with their breasts showing, what would you think about women's role in society?"

No More Page 3 campaigner Jo Cheetham: Sexism in the media is less in your face, but it’s still thereA decade after taking on The Sun’s topless models tradition, Jo Cheetham talks to Imy Brighty-Potts about her new book, and why she quit social media.https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/the-sun-sexism-laura-bates-page-jessica-ennishill-b2295544.html

The #NoMorePage3 campaign was widely acclaimed, described by one MP as a “seismic victory”. Activist Katherine Sladden wrote, “No other campaign has done as much to inspire a new generation of young feminists.” It is still actively campaigning

No More Page 3: how a feminist collective took on a media behemoth to challenge everyday sexismThe campaign to stop newspapers publishing topless photos of women relied on a special brand of emotional energy.https://theconversation.com/no-more-page-3-how-a-feminist-collective-took-on-a-media-behemoth-to-challenge-everyday-sexism-156478

The British government never enacted legislation against Page 3.

In the mid-90s, The Sun began printing Page 3 photos in colour as standard. Captions, previously containing suggestive double entendre, were replaced by a listing of models' first names, ages, and hometowns.

After polling readers, The Sun in 1997 ceased featuring models who had undergone breast augmentation. In 1999, it launched the Page3 .com website, featuring additional photos of current Page 3 models, archival images of former Page 3 models, & other related content.

In the UK, the Sexual Offences Act 2003 raised the minimum age for topless modelling from 16 to 18.

This legal change meant that all topless images of 16- and 17-year-old models that had previously been published on Page 3 became potentially illegal content.

In 2020, Channel 4 produced an hour-long documentary, Page Three: The Naked Truth, to mark 50 years since The Sun first introduced Page 3.

#dontbuythesun #FuckRupertMurdoch #Leveson2

Just two weeks ago, Rupert Murdoch's Fox paid $12MILLION to settle two lawsuits alleging “systematic chauvinism” & a “misogynistic environment that permeates Fox News”, where “female workers are verbally violated on almost a daily basis by a poisonous & entrenched patriarchy”.

[thatdiabolicalfeminist]

No one is doomed to abuse people. There isn't an "abuser gene" or "evil chromosome". There aren't "cursed bloodlines".

There's a culture that frequently enables, romanticizes and eroticizes abuse, and individual human beings who choose to take advantage of that, or not.

Even someone who has abused others in the past has a decision about whether or not to continue that harm. Further abuse isn't inevitable, it's a choice.

The idea that abusers can't help it just further enables abuse culture. If someone is abusive, they are making a choice.

[sparklecryptid]

Look, I think we can all agree with the fact that abuse thrives in darkness. So explain to me why a 21 year old used the word pdfile and pronounce it exactly like that when we were talking about child abuse. Censoring the word does nothing. It literally took me several seconds to understand what she was saying. Clear communication is vital when someone comes or tries to come forward. It can be the difference between them feeling seen and heard and refusing to divulge anything. When you censor words like that in real life there can be consequences because you are obscuring information and hurting communication. Use the proper words. And if they make you so uncomfortable you can’t use them then maybe you shouldn’t be having a conversation that requires use of those words.

[stonebutchery]

it's kind of baffling to me that entire sub-groups of queer folks endured a decade of being singled out and targeted for being asexual, aromantic, bisexual, pansexual, nonbinary, polyamorous, etc. and i have yet to see any substantial apologies from people who were directly responsible for causing genuine harm. i find it completely bizarre that there are so many people who want to sweep their past contributions to widespread lateral aggression toward specific queer groups under the rug like it didn't happen so they can wash their hands of it... there are people who are irreversibly traumatized because of this. there are people who took their lives because of it.

i'm wording the post like despite the fact that exclusionism targeting these groups (and more) continues to persist partly because it was a really frighteningly common trend to harass people just because they were ace, aro, bi, pan, nonbinary, poly, etc... and it's crazy to me that many of the people who were affected by this massive multi-pronged public online bullying campaign against the 'unacceptable types of queers' are the ones still receiving messages like "my url got put on an aphobe blocklist in 2016 because apparently a post i made making fun of asexuals got some teenage asexuals harassed and i still distrust asexuals to this day because of that" ...are you fucking kidding me?

we will never achieve any kind of unity as a queer community while we are insisting upon ignoring the hurt that lateral aggression has caused, and acting like the burden lies on the shoulders of the people who were harmed to forgive the people who harmed them and 'just move on', many of whom are not sorry for what they did! or they don't consider what they did to be wrong! how is that not deeply disturbing and troubling to more of you?

03/06/2024 edit: i’m putting a complete moratorium on this post because i am really sick and tired of having my point not only completely misconstrued and distorted entirely but also weaponized against transfems (particularly in replies i have decided to delete about how “ugh yes, exclusionism, and now transfems are bullying transmascs”) i find that really sickening and i’m demanding that it stop, and i can make it stop by turning off reblogs. so i have.

my objective in writing this post was never to request an apology from people who have been laterally-aggressive exclusionists in the past. i don’t think we’ll ever get more than a handful of apologies from those people, anyway. my point was that it was pretty terrifying to witness and experience a lot of lateral aggression that transferred from the real, in-person world to the deeply online spaces back into the real, in-person world in a really fucked up feedback loop and being a young queer person during this time and having that shape me, snd shape the experiences of my queer friends who have been traumatized by it.

however, it is absolutely unacceptable to me that the issue of transmisogyny is so blatantly overlooked by our entire community. for decades, transfems have experienced oppression and exclusion from transmisogyny-exempt women and queers. their exclusion from political queer liberation movements has caused many of the major schisms within our community we are still having arguments about to this day. if you want collective queer liberation, you must uplift transfems. there is no other option. you don’t get to write off all transfems just because one person who happened to be transfem was mean to you online or something.

i have answered and responded to way too many conspiracy-brained transmisogynist reactionaries to allow this post to keep fucking snowballing with people writing paragraphs in the tags about “transmisandry” or “transandrophobia.” please get your heads out of your asses.

this absolutely is the transmisogyny website, as always, and the place where all basic textual comprehension skills go to die, apparently.

[icedsodapop]

[autopsyfreak]

‘how do you expect people who have been abused by someone with NPD to refer to their abuse then?’

by calling it what it is: emotional abuse.

it’s not difficult.

slapping the word ‘narcissistic’ on the front of abuse is blindly assigning blame and associating the abusive behaviours with NPD, despite the fact that nowhere in the criteria does it state any abusive behaviours as a symptom.

i understand that people who are severely mentally unwell are more prone to abusing others, however to point the blame at a disorder (and therefore at everyone with the disorder) is ableist, irresponsible and grossly misinformed.

to put it into perspective as to how bad the stigma surrounding NPD is, i have been diagnosed with NPD and have been told i should be killed because of it, that i will inevitably abuse my partners i have had, i’ve had partners in the past be harassed by people saying that it’s ‘just a matter of time’ before i abuse them without any of these people ever even knowing me. i see endless amounts of things online calling all narcissists evil, as well as having my own experiences with abuse disregarded because they do not believe someone with NPD could be anything other than a perpetrator, despite the fact NPD is induced by trauma. the list goes on.

your choice of wording does matter and it does damage people with NPD.

[mirroringshards]

you have any fucking word in the dictionary to describe your abuse. please stop using the one that describes a personality disorder

[narcitism]

my abuser had brown hair im a victim of brunette abuse :(

[emotionaleating]

[cruelbrutality]

I have no empathy, remorse, guilt or compassion.

That is how I experience things, as a result of my personality disorders.

If you are going to support personality disorders then you also must include people with these symptoms as well and not just the glorified version the media attempts to convey.

[thatdiabolicalfeminist]

I really think we need to be having conversations more often about how to figure out if you're being abusive, and how to address it if you are.

Abuse isn't just done by one demographic, or in one specific way. Most abusers justify their actions to themselves and do not think of what is happening as abuse.

It's dangerous to just assume that you don't have the ability to abuse someone due to your Pureness of Heart, oppressed status, or status as an abuse survivor. Thinking this way can make you more likely to harm someone.

I have known people who know a lot about abuse, have read a lot about it, and have been abused themselves, who become abusers and don't notice because it doesn't occur to them that they could ever be an abuser. They assume that if abuse is happening, they must always be the victim, because they were in the past.

This perception can make reasonable boundaries feel "controlling" and respectful conversations about harm feel like attacks. In trying to avoid painful feelings, it's possible to become controlling without even realizing that's what's happening.

You can abuse people. I can abuse people. Abusers are human beings who choose to harm and/or exert control over others. Not storybook monsters you have nothing in common with.

Let's talk about how to make sure we keep our friends, loved ones, and other community members safe from harmful behavior, not just from Total Irredeemable Obvious Monsters.

[hey-u-weird]

Yaelokre, boundaries and superfans

I didn’t actually want to reactivate this account, but as I watched the whole Yaelokre thing unfold I just wanted to say my 2 cents

Stating that you don’t want people to make nsfw of your characters is a completely fair thing to say, and it sucks that people aren’t respecting your feelings

but ultimately you can’t control what people do with your own characters and how they will interpret your work, you can’t control thoughts, feelings, triggers and boundaries other than your own

which brings me to the next bit: boundaries. What are they? They’re something for you to set up and control. A very valid boundary is saying things like “I’m extremely uncomfortable with erotic works of my characters, please don’t send it to me”

But that is not what Keath (Yaelokre) has done

Yaelokre has asked their majorly underage fans to go out of their way to send and to report them “inappropriate, offensive material and or misinfo” about their work.

This is incredibly unprofessional and dangerous, as they’re sending minors into adult spaces to report nsfw and to play vigilante and go “pedo hunting”, as if this is a fun thing minors can do as a hobby.

Sure, the artist most likely didn’t intend this to happen, and they didn’t specifically say minors should report nsfw media, but the post was seen by more than 90.000 people, so of course minors will take it as a call to action to “hunt” for it, bringing themselves in danger.

What’s worse, not only is Yaelokre abusing copyright laws (even if they registered their characters for copyright, other people can still create fan works of their characters under “fair use”), they have been completely silent about their fans’ behavior, essentially greenlighting harassment, violent and graphic threats being sent to anyone who is or might be upsetting Kaeth

TW // disturbing threats , mention of violence and genitalia mutilation

it’s really interesting, Yaelokre wants control over the fandom and people who make art, yet it is superfans who accuse people who made those (currently 6) erotic artworks and those who defend the right to make such art as unable to control themselves.

this begs the question, why isn’t the creator saying anything? Because they’re currently blocking everyone who even mentions those threats. This confirms Yaelokre is aware of what is happening, but they will not control their violent fan base because they’re helping them take control of their boundaries like “vigilantes”

And while these toxic superfans have only gone after the artworks of erotic nature which exist in the fandom, since the artist has stated that “misinfo and offensive material” also upsets them, it will only be a matter of time before even genuine, sfw only fans are going to feel the wrath of them eventually

Because as long as something exist that could make someone uncomfortable, it’s bad, which also raises the question why art is made at all then since any art can make someone uncomfortable

I would also like to mention that this is an incredibly toxic way of handling your own work. Original characters might be your own, but they are merely an extension of yourself and not you, nor your “children”. Yaelokre has implied that this mistreatment of their OCs is akin to actual child abuse. This will absolutely lead to people sending “offensive” art to child protection organizations too, hindering their job

And I completely understand how upsetting it is to see material you don’t like, many big and small artists have voiced their feelings about it, but this attempt to coercively control people who make art the or an artist doesn’t like will only lead to them crashing and burning out.

It is far easier to avoid nsfw, fanart/fanfics and pretend it doesn’t exist because you really can’t fight against it, once you make art for others, once your work is “famous” enough that it accumulates millions of subscribers and fans all over the world and go on tours, then it’s no longer your own little project

And if you can’t handle the responsibility of being tactful with your fandom (stop treating total strangers in the fandom like they’re your friends, they are NOT) and attempt to control them because your feelings were hurt, then maybe you should step back from social media, let someone else take care of it and focus on creating what you like away from all the triggering things that can upset you

and really though, was it really necessary to go nuclear over 6 pieces of erotic artwork?

needless to say however, please leave the artist alone. We can’t force them to see how damaging this behavior is to themselves and to the existence of (their) fandom as a whole, they’ll have to come to this realization themselves.

once you, as creator, attempt to sue someone for an idea, headcanons, theories or art you don’t like, then there will be no fandom left

[de8dly]

substance abuse? i think youll find that i am quite nice to those substances, officer.