#and it doesn’t make you right because you’re an SA victim it makes you one of those asshole SA victims who use their experiences

[ghosts-r-real-i-swear]

Me when I invalidate SA Victims and then proceed to ignore any evidence that the character I like was a bad person. Snape is morally grey, he’s not supposed to be perfect but at least snape stans can admit wrongdoing.

[hazbinwhoree]

This might be an odd request and by all means you can ignore this and pretend it doesn’t exists but I was wondering you could do an incident like what morty had to go through with mr jellybean? What would his reaction be and would he like- kill this guy? You don’t have to do this request because it makes you uncomfortable or if you simply don’t want to do it. Love your works ❤️❤️

The Incident

A/N: As a SA victim I really liked writing this comfort piece.

TW: Implied sexual assault, sexual assault discussed.

It happened when they were in Hell for a meeting. Adam usually didn’t let (Name) go very far, but she had to use the bathroom, so he watched her round the corner to the bathrooms before refocusing on the meeting.

When (Name) came back, it was evident something was very wrong. “Are you almost done?” Her voice cracked like she was about to cry. “I want to go home.”

Adam was confused and about to ask her what had happened to make her like this, when a demon rounded the corner from the bathrooms, looking at her angrily. (Name) glanced at him and her eyes widened, turning back to Adam. “Please. I know you’re not done, I’m sorry, I just…”

Adam quickly put two and two together. “The meeting is over,” Adam announced. He opened a portal to Heaven. “Go, babe, there’s just something I have to take care of, I’ll be right behind you.”

(Name) looked like she wanted to protest, but there was something in Adam’s eyes that made her not question him. She stepped through the portal. Adam closed it behind her, stalking up behind the demon who’d done this.

(Name) paced anxiously. She felt gross and violated and just wanted to be in Adam’s arms. True to his word, Adam opened a portal and stepped through a moment later. (Name) gasped. He was covered in blood.

“Adam–” Adam held up his hand to stop her. “Don’t fucking worry about it.” He scooped her up into his arms and took flight, flying back to their place. Once they were there, they stood still in the privacy of their living room, Adam’s wings wrapping protectively around them.

“How far did he get?” he asked quietly.

(Name) sniffed. “Just some groping. When I tried to get away he grabbed me… he pulled me into a stall and tried to do more. H-he fucking licked me… I was able to get a solid punch in and it threw him off and while he was off guard I slammed his head against the toilet.”

“That’s my girl,” Adam said, kissing the top of her head. (Name) buried her face in his chest. He was shaking slightly with rage.

“Did you kill him?” (Name) asked, voice soft. “I told you not to fuckin’ worry about it.”

(Name) let out a choked cry.

“No, babe, I’m sorry–” “It’s not you,” (Name) cried. “That was just really scary.” “Oh, baby,” Adam soothed, his heart hurting. “You’re okay. I’ve got you now.”

Adam never failed to make (Name) feel safe. She cried softly as he held her. All she could see through her blurry vision was Adam’s robe and golden wings. “I love you,” she mumbled.

“I love you too,” Adam cooed. “Do you want to try and get some sleep? You might feel better. I think you’re… fuck, what’s it called? Emotionally exhuasted, that’s it.” (Name) chuckled. “You’re not wrong. I would like to go to bed.”

“So to bed we go,” Adam said, carrying her towards the bedroom.

He pulled back the covers and gently placed her down in the bed before joining her on the other side after shedding his bloody robe and mask. He pulled the covers up and over them before pulling her into his chest. He covered her with his wing.

“You’re safe,” he whispered. “No one will ever hurt you again. I promise.”

[nereidprinc3ss]

Potentially controversial opinion regarding headcanons/mentions of SA

I think it’s quite strange to headcanon that a character has sexual trauma….. like just out of the blue off the top of your head…… and I don’t mean like if they canonically had an event occur that could’ve been sexually traumatizing and then expanding on that trauma in a way that the show didn’t I mean straight up headcanoning like “hc this character was raped and now has trauma” LIKE WHAT DO U MEAN? To me that is one of the most blatant forms of romanticization of SA I can imagine. That’s not something you should CHOOSE for any preexisting character like if you’re making an OC that’s one thing but just deciding someone has been assaulted for no reason other than you want them to be even more victimized and traumatized and to add character texture strikes me as odd because sexual trauma is not a personality trait it is TRAUMAAA

Like the incessant clinging to the idea that Spencer was sa’d by his father as a child when we are SHOWN that in fact did NOT happen, or acknowledging that cat objectively told him he was not assaulted in Mexico and that it would be scientifically impossible for that to have occurred (which btw I have doubts that he wouldn’t have realized that because he surely knows about the effects of drugs on sexual response and also it just doesn’t make any sense that Lindsay would’ve been able to somehow transfer his sperm from Mexico to cat in prison in America without it dying) and STILL being like “well it still could’ve happened she could’ve been lying that it didn’t!!” Like brother WHY do we want him to have sexual trauma so bad I’m not saying it’s impossible that he wouldn’t have from the cat situation because ofc he could’ve been under the impression that something happened though I think it’s a bit of a plot hole but considering him being a genius who would’ve realized that but hasn’t he gone through enough???😭😭

Also there is male representation of SA trauma LITERALLY RIGHT THERE IN THE FORM KF DEREK MORGAN WHY DO WE IGNORE HIM HELLO!!!!!

[piqued-curiosity]

As a cis woman, scum like you make me sick. I hope your stupid transphobic ass gets taught a lesson

Kissing the feet of the trans community is only harming yourself and other women in the long run. You may think sending these kinds of asks make you safe and position you as a Good Cis Woman…but they don’t. One day you’ll do something they don’t like. Maybe you’ll defend a victim of SA who doesn’t want to be around males. Maybe you’ll defend a lesbian who’s being pressured to like penis. Maybe you’ll refer to periods or pregnancy as a women’s issue. Maybe you’ll talk about women’s rights a little too much.

Speaking from experience, literally all it takes for you to be branded as a “terf” is to step out of line once. And the line is so thin, it’s so easy to step out of. You’re a woman, so you’re going to be judged for every tiny thing you do. You’re always at risk of being called a “terf” unless you carefully watch your every move and word to make sure you’re properly obeying the demands of the trans community.

So put down your fellow women as much as you want. Just know that one day, you’ll probably be on the receiving end simply because you’re a woman. Good luck.

[theoihalioistuff]

What do you think of Ovid?

Great poet, love a lot of his works. I really don't understand why this little corner of tumblr is so weird about him. TW rape

On one hand people think he was apparently some reviling bard who thoroughly despised the gods and purposely twisted the "orginal" myths to mock them, make them seem evil and behave unethically by modern standards (something no greek god would ever do). I've also seen people claim that his versions shouldn't be acknowledged at all because he was a roman author and not greek. While I do think it's important people bear in mind the different cultural context, place and historical moment when it comes to his writings, discrediting all of them because of his nationality seems absurd. It's very hard to distinguish between what is Ovidian invention and what isn't (he had access to countless works now lost to us that he drew upon), and though he most likely did come up with plenty versions of his own, so did literally every author who contributed to the corpus of mythological texts. Though I certainly wouldn't slap the label "greek myth" to every Ovidian narrative, I also wouldn't stricly discredit all of them (also context should be applied when reading every autor, e.g. Euripides' unsympathetic portrayal of spartan characters like Menelaos, Helen or Hermione in the context of the Peloponnesian War).

On the other hand (though not as frequently) I've seen some Ovid defenders hail him as some sort of amazing feminist icon because he's sometimes sympathetic to SA victims and "gives women voice" in his Heroides. He was a roman man in the 1st C. BC to AD. Appart from the fact that the term feminist wouldn't even apply to anyone in antiquity (proto-feminist at best), his "tips on how to get women" in the Ars Amatoria should cue people in as to how much of a "feminist" he was (the text that follows is really upsetting and disgusting so I've left it below the cut):

"And tears help: tears will move a stone: let her see your damp cheeks if you can. If tears (they don’t always come at the right time) fail you, touch your eyes with a wet hand. What wise man doesn’t mingle tears with kisses?

Though she might not give, take what isn’t given. Perhaps she’ll struggle, and then say ‘you’re wicked’: struggling she still wants herself to be conquered. Only take care her lips aren’t bruised by snatching, and that she can’t complain that you were harsh.

Who takes a kiss, and doesn’t take the rest, deserves to lose all that were granted too. How much short of your wish are you after that kiss? Ah me, that was boorishness stopped you, not modesty.

Though you call it force, it’s force that pleases girls: what delights is often to have given what they wanted, against their will. She who is taken in love’s sudden onslaught is pleased, and finds wickedness is a tribute.

And she who might have been forced, and escapes unscathed, will be saddened, though her face pretends delight. Phoebe was taken by force: force was offered her sister: and both, when raped, were pleased with those who raped them." - Ars Amatoria 1, Ovid.

[aldbooks]

Can we please put this whole “Gwyn is a child/childish” thing to rest? Being described as young doesn’t make her a child. All of the Archeron sisters are described this way and she’s older than all of them. Cassian calling her a young girl…. No shit. The man is over 500 years old. A girl in her 20s is young to him. We describe women in that age group as girls too. It doesn’t always mean a literal child, it just implies youth.

For crying out loud.

Also, liking things that some people consider “silly or childish”, doesn’t make one childish. This site is full of grown ass adults with grown up jobs and families of their own who geek the hell out over Disney, and children’s stories and anime and books. That doesn’t make any of us “childish”.

You know what childish is? Throwing a tantrum because you can’t handle your emotions or don’t get your way. Childish is being mean to someone because you’re upset about something. Childish is not being able to play well with others.

Every other character in the series has displayed one or more of these types of behaviors (except fucking Gwyn) at some point, and no one calls them childish.

Gwyn lived a very sheltered life in the temple and, from the sound of it, spent a lot of time caring for the children there. So what if she takes pleasure in simple, silly things that make her smile like miniature Pegasus and friendship bracelets. Nesta and Emerie were right there with her enjoying those same silly things but no one ever calls them childish. For goodness sake, Gwyn is (as far as we know) older than both Emerie and all the Acheron sisters.

Nesta and Emerie “censor” themselves around Gwyn and skirt around certain words and things when discussing sex because she’s a fucking SA victim and they’re considerate. She also tells them, quite pointedly, that she doesn’t mind what they talk about or say and even joins the discussion.

I know some of you really want to find reasons to point and say “see she can’t be with Az because xyz” but this, and the whole “Gwyn can’t have an intimate relationship because SA”, are the most asinine reasons I’ve ever heard and yet they somehow keep getting repeated…

[softspiderling]

Its not about Jace doing things i dont think he would do. Its that women writing men raping women is concerning and it happens enough in real life. Jace tricking a girl into a hidden hallway and face fucking a virgin until she chokes and then doggy style fucking her against a pillar taking her virginity when she is a ward of a vassel house and cant say no to the crown prince is coersion, SA and rape. Its a common theme in season 2 Jace fics for him to SA women and the fact that no one tags it as warnings because they dont realize its rape is disturbing

because it is obvious that reader is into jace, did you want me to write “Oh my god i want to fuck him” for you to realize that it was consensual?

and “can’t say no to the crown prince” doesn’t even make sense because then jace can’t have consensual sex with anyone, by your logic. so he should just go into brothels, right?

so rhaenyra sleeping with criston cole and harwin was also rape? because she was the crown princess at that point?

you don’t even realize how fucked up it is just coming into my inbox and yelling rape when you know nothing about me. you think you’re being a martyr but all you’re doing is being disrespectful to actual rape victims and trivializing an important matter just to receive attention which you’re clearly not getting irl

[marginaletchings]

Personally I feel like the rushed pace of Hazbin is more of an indictment of The Industry of making shows, especially animated ones, rather than of Vivzie and the crew.

There are also some issues I have with some interpretations and expectations people are having, like… Media also has its logistical limitations, especially “alternative” (subversive) media and media spearheaded by women. I personally would much rather they use their time wisely, even if payoff and key character moments aren’t always earned, than waste multiple episodes doing slice of life in an 8-episode season. (Looking at you, Steven Universe.)

I also don’t think y’all understand the limitations of the process of animating (in terms of time, manpower, budget, etc) —but also of how they may not have been able to get signed on with A24 and Amazon if they didn’t have big name actors going with it.

Y’all act like this is just Vivienne stomping around being a mean old Karen, when in reality, that is not how creative productions work. There is so much we don’t know but everyone is content to condemn the series largely based on emotional reactions, assumptions and too often, bad faith. It’s not even done airing yet.

Hazbin Hotel has its flaws—cram packed pacing being the main one—but as a huge fan of animated shows, who grew up in the 90s, to me it is a damn breath of fresh air. Do I wish they’d stop and just let us feel something more often? Sure! I’m sure Viv and the crew do too, if Helluva Boss is anything to go by.

Criticism of a creative work is valid, but only when it takes into account how that thing is actually made and most importantly, the context in which it exists. If you ignore those two things, your criticism is always going to ring hollow and come off as shallow and uninformed.

Shockingly, opinions aren’t always constructive criticism, and some folks seem to have missed that distinction.

EDIT: Would also kindly like to add that as a survivor of SA, abuse, depression, Husk and Angel’s song in ep 4 did not come across as victim blaming to me. Self pity and self hatred lie at the root of self destruction, and no matter how much you’ve earned the right to sit in that mire, admitting that you’re in a fucked up place is the first step toward acceptance and the path to healing. When you’ve been hurt, you grieve, and Angel was in a stage of denial and depression.

Sometimes, the only way to break through that powerful fog is for someone to tell you, yeah, shit is fucked up and you’re an absolute disaster, but you are not alone and I am here with you. I personally would rather have someone just be honest with me instead of spouting some saccharine nonsense. People always talk about how there’s a better place beyond what I’ve walked through, but I hated that, because it offered no honest assessment or comfort for me while I was still in the thick of it.

You can be so hurt that you’re lost in the pain and misery and you lose the perspective you need to hold onto any kind of hope. Husk offered him that hope, and without engaging in the Suffering Olympics. He was open and straightforward and genuine. No more bullshit.

And Angel doesn’t need bullshit, he needs honesty and people that care about him, who will be there through whatever comes next.

But that? That’s just my opinion.

[theskullkid]

On Supporting the Art, not the Artist

There’s a lot going around about the prospect of supporting the art, not the artist. It means that you still listen to what an artist makes despite the fact that the artist is a grade-A douchebag. I’m very much against it, but there’s a point that I’m going to attempt to get across here about it. There is a lot of grey area that happens to be involved in that argument.

It seems pretty straight forward and simple: If an artist you like, whether the art is music, or novels, or physical art (though in most cases, and one I’m going to be referring to the most, is music), royally fucks up in the most unforgivable way, then you stop listening to them. You have to. What they’ve done is strictly unforgivable and you can’t condone or support it. Drop the artist right then and there, and forget they exist. However, though, it’s NOT that simple. Sometimes, the art that the artist makes is much more than art to the listener.

A song IS more than art. A song is something that can grip your soul in a chokehold and smother it in such strong emotions and feelings that it can make you sob or laugh. Music can help someone feel safe. Music may not be able to offer you as much as therapy or family’s support when you’re in the toughest mental scrap you’ve ever been in, but it can help ease the pain. Music is so very powerful. Listeners, especially listeners who need the comfort, will latch onto music that addresses the things that they’ve gone through- or, rather, are GOING through- and use it like a lifeline, crying to it and singing to it and listening to it whenever they get the chance. Those songs connect to them emotionally.

For my lil’ argument here, I’m going to use Melanie Martinez and her music as an example. Melanie has written songs about ED’s, abusive home situations, kidnappings, SA, sexism.. The list goes on. There are people who listen to her that are victims of the same things that Melanie writes songs about. They listen to those songs as a form of coping, and as a form of comfort; it can give them a sense of support, that they aren’t alone, and it can give them something to relate to. And, like I said, there are people who are struggling with that kind of stuff RIGHT NOW, in the moment, who use those songs as a lifeline. Those songs could be the one thing keeping them alive right now.

Right now, Melanie is being faced with allegations of r-pe and SA. Allegations that seem extremely true.

Are you going to tell those listeners, who use her music to help themselves cope, to take their mind off of what they’re going through right now, that they shouldn’t listen to her anymore? Are you going to hate on them until they do stop? Are you going to send them death threats, or send them hateful messages, or tell them to k-ll themselves, just because they have an artist that they listen to for comfort in their time of struggle?

I’m not saying I support Melanie, or other artists like her. In fact, I’ll be the first to spit on her grave. I stopped listening to her. But just because I could, doesn’t mean that someone else who is EMOTIONALLY attached to her music, can, too. 

I’m not saying to support artists who do fucked up shit. I’m saying to ease up on the listeners who use their music as a way to comfort themselves. You don’t know what they’re going through, and with that in mind, you don’t know what they do to help them cope and process it. There are also times when the listener is just uneducated and doesn’t know what the artist did— to which i say to please educate them on the matter.

Now, with this in mind, I will say this. If you ARE a listener to uses a fucked artist’s music as a comfort mechanism, then I ask that you please find a way to listen to that music without directly supporting the artist. Listen to their songs through one of those lyric channels on YouTube, or find another way to listen to them without directly supporting them. Because, in the end, the artist still proved themselves to be a monster. And even if you are listening to their songs to cope, that still means that you’re supporting that monster. If their songs are the only things helping you, then yes, listen to them. But I hope and pray that you can one day break away from them. 

[agentoffangirling]

Your false moralising is disgusting. Really repugnant. You don’t care whether Neil Gaiman raped anyone as long Good Omens doesn’t get cancelled. You cynically abuse the term transphobic in order to condemn anyone who disagrees with you.

The mental gymnastics you’re doing right now to defend a millionaire in his 40s having sexually sadomaschistic & allegedly abusive relationship with a 20 year old, a man whom multiple women have credibly accused of assault to the extent that he is under police investigation — do you have ANY idea how clear-cut an allegation of sexual or domestic abuse against a wealthy man has to be in order for the police to go out on a limb? You’re disgusting. Trans people are overwhelmingly victims of misogynistic violence & heroes in the fight against patriarchy & you have no right to use that word to defend your pet rapist author. Who is, by the way, also a Zionist. You are morally bankrupt & without human empathy. Think of how alone those women and girls must feel and have felt and weigh that against your comfort show. What the fuck happened to human decency? How can you delude yourself that you’re a good person?

Hi current and future anons, before I proceed, I highly advise you to actually read my posts on these before filling up my inbox. Do you need to send the same thing four times before I get it? Don't think so

Stated in my previous posts that people who are centering Good Omens over this shouldn't be doing so. I only mentioned Good Omens in that context as I saw people on my dash talking about Good Omens over a real situation. Which, while I do understand, is not something we should be centering right now as there are more important things happening. Check your first point off

There is no proof Gaiman has 🍇 anyone. There are allegations that he may have SA-ed two women, however, this is the part where I am waiting on more clear information. Already, the fact that he was with these women is very very sketchy and weird on Gaiman's part. However, we still need more information on the nature of the relationships as the situation is quite murky, and that is what I am waiting on. I'm not going to be that person who makes quick judgement only to be proven false in the end. Check your second point off

I haven't called anyone transphobic for condemning Gaiman. I have said that the article writer is transphobic, a well-known fact, and that the article hosts transphobic content. That doesn't mean the content is automatically false, but it does mean to be careful with it as it could be misleading about the events that happened since Gaiman supports trans rights. Check your third point off

I haven't defended Gaiman whatsoever. All I've said is that we need to wait, how does that translate to "omg how dare you defend him!!" I've said multiple times that he is already in the wrong. And the only source that police are involved is from the article and not from any source, making this point difficult to prove. Check your fourth point off

I am well aware Gaiman is a Zionist and for that reason, I don't support him. I have always supported Palestine and I do not support him. Like I've said a billion times already, I DO NOT SUPPORT NEIL GAIMAN WHATEVER THE END RESULT IS. Get that through your heads. Check your fifth point off

I have also previously stated that I completely support the victims. I don't think you actually read my posts, anon, because if you did, you would've noticed that I pointed out that the victims need all the support they can get right now, and I fully support them. Where did I even suggest that I am supporting Good Omens over them? Right, nowhere. Check your sixth point off

I will be ignoring all future anons on this topic, since I have already made myself extremely clear where I stand. I am not making any future posts on this topic until more information is revealed. If you have a question, great, reread my posts on this, cause I'm 99% sure it's already addressed in at least one of those. I'm done talking about this when I've already made my standpoints crystal clear

[icanseethefuture333]

This is out of absolutely nowhere but is it weird that I want Nicki Minaj to divorce that dusty man? Like girly, please deal with your childhood trauma from your daddy and realise that your man is a dustyyyyyy. The dustiest of dusties ugh. I think that maybe because of all of the trauma in her family and how she was raised, she doesn’t think much of it and thinks it’s normal but no girl, noooo. Like she’s grown up around problematic men (her dad literally set the house on fire with her mom inside it) so that’s her norm. She could do SO MUCH BETTER UGH. Like Nicki you’re PRETTY. YOU’RE BEAUTIFUL AND YOU GOT OPTIONS STOP SETTLING FOR WHAT YOU THINK YOU DESERVE. And she gets so defensive about this dusty because she thinks she deserves him and it makes her look bad like omg Nicki stop, this ain’t it. Sorry I had to vent about this lollll

No because I was a big a fan of Nicki since I was a little girl and her marrying that man honestly broke my heart and I haven't looked at her the same since. Now I just use her for memes because thats just how I honestly view her, her behavior is a joke. All these female celebrities I noticed are big fat liars. They claim to be feminists but then will date men who talk to women terribly then on top of it they will date sex offenders and women beaters. It disgusts me. I know we can be trauma bonded to people because of childhood trauma but I just feel like Nicki at her grown age should know better. Even if it was true, like let's say her husband was falsely accused, why be with a man who has a negative reputation anyways? I feel like if I was dating someone and they got accused or was accused of SA, I wouldn't be with them no matter how much I love them because 1. I'm dismissing the victim 2. I'd be ruining my own reputation in the process. There's plenty of fish in the sea, why stay with a man who's accused of a felony? I definitely do think her childhood is a major factor and I even believe her relationship with Lil Wayne was toxic in some aspects as well. She idolizes him and when she heard him talk about women's bodies and big butts, she felt pressured to get plastic surgery. That's so awful for a young woman to go through. In some ways, Nicki is a very lovely person, but the negative and problematic things she's done out weighs that for me (being anti black with her comments, working with a blackfisher and betraying as well as attacking Leigh Anne on social media right after she just gave birth to twins, and made multiple songs with Chris Brown, I'm sure there's even more that i'm forgetting or don't know about). What I've learned is that unfortunately most celebrities will have to do things that are questionable due to their labels and PR pushing them to do things because they're binded by contract, or they get so fucked up and let the money get to their head. One person I admire to this day is Tinashe. I felt like she should of been a big superstar because her talent is exceptional, but I think universe saved her and protected her from that lifestyle fr. She has a loyal fanbase that loves her and she doesn't have to work with dusties anymore. Tinashe was forced to make a song with R.Kelly when she was only 22. On top of that being forced to make a song with Chris Brown when she didn't want to. She defended Kehlani when Chris Brown was bashing her when Lani was falsely accused of cheating on Kyrie Irving (when they weren't even together smh). Tinashe could of stayed silent and I'm glad she (as well as Zendaya!) came to her defense. I want genuine girl power and feminism back. I have been missing Destiny's Child because I miss girls being friends and being empowered together. I hope Flo in some way can have take over their crown.

[aronarchy]

you're asian. you should understand. do some research into what a tool of imperialism and colonialization and war, what a tool of racial fetishization """sex work"""" is.

Ah. And there it is.

-

You had quite a different tune just three asks ago:

youre 16. women which have been trafficked their entire childhoods, which have been sex slaves, which have been "sex workers" have more a right to speak than you, im sorry but you quite literally dont understand. i am nonwestern. i was poor.

stop with the fucking sex work shit because you think anything else is offensive. its privileged. its privileged western bullshit which is offensive as fuck and speaks over those of us who are Actually impacted by this god damn narrative.

Make up your mind. Am I evil privileged white-adjacent imperialist oppressor or poor fellow victim oppressed uwu femme of color? Ignorant invading outsider or alike comrade who’d understand your struggles? Person Deserving Of A Voice here or person who should shut up about this?

Do you think someone like me with my particular marginalizations and experiences would see your offer as kind generous benevolent helpful education, or as yet another example of the misogynistic and adultist (and racist) paternalism I have been subjected to throughout my life?

Do you think someone like me with my particular marginalizations and experiences am the type to buy into moral panic, to leave behind rigorous examination the moment the buzzwords come out, to cave to sex negativity the moment I am pressured with think of the poor women and think of the children? I’m a freak and a deviant and a degenerate, along with “(C )SA survivor” and “feminist of color.” I feel no loyalty to you and your crowd. I have nothing for the people who wished to tokenize me and then call for my murder the moment I stepped out of the Acceptable sj circle and I have no interest in repetitions of the same argument that has been used trying to justify my and my communities’ extermination (“if you say/do that you are literally offending/harming every single rape survivor”--“rape apologist/enabler” weaponized as a marker of an Immoral person to level violence and abuse against, and not just to indicate someone with specific sets of beliefs that actually enable/support rape)

“You’re Asian. You should understand.”

And then, not one sentence later:

“do some research into what a tool of imperialism and colonialization and war, what a tool of racial fetishization """sex work"""" is.”

Gotta pick one, anon. Asian, so should understand? Or privileged bourgeois white-adjacent westerner, so doesn’t understand, and should do their research?

All of the above which ties fairly well into one of the things I answered to your first ask: SWERFs’ habit of tokenizing the marginalized, treating us all as monoliths, then silencing us if we disagree or don’t fit the narrative, or immediately jumping to a “poor deluded brainwashed lost little lambs” narrative (which they of course are immune to, and can “save” us from), but also going back to tokenization and agreement if they find us useful. “Privileged” and “oppressed,” “imperialist” and “colonized” becoming idpol buzzwords instead of meaningful material class indicators.

I usually do slightly different discourses here; sw crim vs legalization vs decrim hasn’t really been one of my major topics of interest compared to others. I’ve only properly posted about it with my own commentary very few times over the past year, so I’m not exactly sure where this is coming from, but I have several guesses:

- yesterday on fedi I live-tweeted my reactions to a sex-negative TIRF piece I was reading and felt annoyed about. the portions I screenshotted might’ve mentioned sw a few times, though it wasn’t the focus of my critique, but maybe one of you people with a vendetta regarding my discoursing decided to follow me here? wouldn’t be the first time that’s happened

- yesterday, on my alt, I reblogged a post calling out a “transfeminist” for citing Esperanza Fonseca’s SWERF piece to a transfeminist reading list, and calling out her paternalistic sentiments in attempting to speak for Asians and the third world as a westerner (I put in some snarky tags but I didn’t think it would catch much notice)

- several months ago I posted a few quotes from Kate Zen Joy’s pro-decrim Medium essay responding to Esperanza’s, and reblogged it with a long personal rant about some unpleasant dynamics I have observed in swerf discourse and attempts by westerners and sympathizers at discussing Asian/Third World communism (the thing only received one note, a reblog from a friend who has since been suspended)

- on this blog I’ve also reblogged some other callouts of Esperanza and AF3IRM for their carceral proposals regarding prostitution and covert racist transmisogyny, and I reblogged one a few weeks ago with some snarky tag commentary (but no one has put any notes on that one either yet)

- two days ago some radfem decided to spread trafficking conspiracy theories in the notes of a leftist post. I responded, they doubled down and were rude to me, I checked their blog and saw several rightwing posts. I blocked them and posted the interaction to my blog. my post was not tagged with any swerf/radfem tags.

- a few months ago my mutual was arguing with some terfs about sw, and I decided to add my take to a few of the reblogs, and blocked everyone, and shortly after someone decided to traumadump in my inbox in graphic detail complete with adultist insults and other patronizing language, but no one else harassed me beyond that

- earlier this year some terf tagged me to accuse me of hating third-world cis WOC by derailing a post about femicide (I didn’t; it was someone else who’d had this URL before they deleted and I took it), and a lot of terfs reblogged the OG to dunk on the previous aronarchy, but no one else apart from her complained at me directly (apart from another vague anon a few months later)

I’m not even really active in arguing with people on Tumblr at all (anymore). Apart from that I’ve retweeted and posted a few things on Twitter but none of this is much at all compared to the people who devote their entire days and life’s work to defending decrim and arguing with swerfs, many of whom are (T)WOC and/or sex trafficking survivors, I’m really not sure what could’ve warranted or provoked four separate anonymous asks sent to me almost completely out of the blue to harass me. Callout post I haven’t noticed yet? Or just plain stalking? I don’t know.

Again, I challenge you to simply replace “sex work” with “____ work,” “____” for literally anything else, any other occupation, any other form of labor, any other form of labor which involves coercion or exploitation. I ask you to differentiate between “has been used as a tool of,” “has involved,” and “inherently equals/involves/requires.” Keep your rude condescension to yourself. Keep your bold fucking assumptions about my supposed lack of knowledge to yourself. Shut up about my privileged and marginalized demographic traits until you have an accurate map of which is which, and stop treating one like the other.

I would say “do your own research,” but I’m not really sure which recommended readings I would start with--my stance is based off several years of listening to various sex workers’ experiences and opinions here and there, and reading swerf/authcom pieces and interrogating them for their internal inconsistencies and spending time thinking about their arguments and other arguments (I only started actually writing them down very recently). And some things some discoursers/activists I admire have written, but I don’t have many of those saved, and some have been wiped from the internet. Mainly building off a larger theory base of materialism/anti-essentialism, several years of unpleasant experiences regarding radfem spaces and following the flow of their/your arguments to their roots, and a great deal of lived experience regarding christian fundamentalism and purity culture (and things from/for the perspective of someone like me don’t seem to be written down in longform very much at this point in time).

Like--I’m a very tired, very traumatized person, I stopped trying to hold puritan hands a long time ago, I don’t have the time or the spoons to entertain your bullshit and try to talk you through all of our disagreements all while you hurl insults at me, I’m really not interested and I’ve already wasted a lot of time I needed to do other things on writing out surface-level responses to all these today, I would really appreciate if you just fucked off from my blog forever and left me the fuck alone, and all your swerf friends with you.

Get out.

[riverofempathy]

It’s a shame, really, that no one registers it as physical violence, or any of Edward’s behavior in New Moon as problematic. Like, they straight up left Bella without a goodbye and let Edward abandon her in the woods even when Alice can see how devastated and depressed she will be. Oh, and Alice’s visions can’t predict if a bear or cougar will randomly come across Bella and attack her, you know? So whyyyyy would they risk that? They just let Edward treat her terribly because “it’s his relationship” I guess.

But anyway, back to this scene specifically (which I completely forgot about). I know Esme adores Edward, but she had an abusive husband. You’re telling me she saw Edward doing THAT to Bella and she wasn’t concerned at ALL?

If she’s too blinded by motherly love, fine, how about Rosalie? Rosalie doesn’t like Bella, sure, but she doesn’t really like Edward, either. She tolerates him at best. You would think she of all people could look at Edward without rose-tinted glasses and realize that even if he was being gentle by vampire standards, he was being violent and controlling by human standards. And she would know, given the very violent last night of her life. In the movie version of her assault, her scumbag fiancé actually did a very similar thing to her, in fact—grabbed her jaw and controlled the way it turned.

No matter how much Rosalie disliked her, she still took the time to tell Bella when she was making a mistake and when she was giving up too much. Because of her past, Rose believed very strongly that Bella should have a choice—and here was Edward, forcibly holding and turning Bella’s jaw so that it was hard for her to speak or even move.

Rosalie of all people should have seen that as a red flag, and Rosalie of all people WOULD HAVE SAID SOMETHING TO BELLA. She also should have given Edward a piece of her mind. Like, immediately, in fact.

“Get your hands off her! This is her life, her choice! You don’t get to decide anything for her! And you definitely don’t get to control her body!”

I swear, Stephenie Meyer didn’t consider the impact of assault or abuse at all when she used that as a backstory for Rosalie… and Esme… and Bella… and Victoria… Like, she just needed these women to be in danger/almost die in order to be saved by a vampire (or in Victoria’s case date one, even though James was a serial killer and should have been the last man she ever wanted to be with). It’s so frustrating, that Stephenie wrote those stories again and again, but they changed NOTHING about the characters or the plot, which is NOT how it works. SA causes trauma. For a long time. It is not a plot device. It is a real thing that happens to women, to children, to men, even, but of course when Stephenie had an opportunity for those same backstories to happen for men, she changed it, so she can fuck right off with that noise.

If you’re not going to do anything with a character’s trauma, let alone show them having trauma, leave it out.

Rosalie could have died in a hit and run (with her drunk fiancé and his friends behind the wheel, of course; she could still seek revenge on them if it was important to Stephenie; but apparently not since in Breaking Dawn, she forgot Rosalie had crazy self-control).

Esme didn’t have to be in an abusive marriage; the story of her jumping off a cliff because of the grief of losing her infant child is already intense and traumatic, and the way it was written, her abusive husband had nothing to do with it; he could have been a loving husband, or she could have been widowed, or she could have had the child out of wedlock, and the story could have ended the same.

Bella didn’t have to nearly get assaulted, either; Edward already saved her life once, so instead of randomly having them not talk for months after that, just let the friendship/romance (and PLOT) bloom immediately. You don’t need another damsel-in-distress moment, and certainly not one where you frame it as the victim’s fault. But fine, you want another suspenseful scene where Edward has to save her? What if she’s just lost and panicking? You laid out the groundwork already.

Here’s the thing, Stephenie, about plots for female characters: it doesn’t have to be violent. Why are you so focused on making violent things happen to women? More specifically, why do you keep choosing sexual violence? A woman’s literal worst nightmare? If you at least had them process the trauma and heal from it, that would be one thing. But putting women through violent things just to put them through violent things? And then taking their genderbent counterparts and putting them through different things? It’s almost like you could have put them through different scenarios all along…

Oh, and then you have both the love interests do aggressive, controlling, hurtful things… and you act like that’s normal, like that’s ROMANCE?!

….

Stephenie, are you okay? Do you need us to call someone?

I’m not sure if you’ve ever said anything about this, but the first time I read new moon, the vote chapter, there was one bit that really stuck out:

(from Bella’s point of view) Edward grabbed my face in his hand, forcing me to look at him. His other hand was out, palm toward Carlisle. Carlisle ignored that.

Bella later went on to say it was hard to talk clearly with how Edward was holding her jaw. I don’t know if I’ve misunderstood what exactly was happening, but why did the entire family watch that and do nothing? I’ve read the metas where you’ve said it’d take a lot for Carlisle to realise what Edward really is, but surely that’s a pretty massive indicator and Carlisle actively ignored it?

Anon, you're hilarious.

An Aside in Which I Say "Look in the Mirror"

I've been running this blog for a few years now (a terrifying thought) and I'm both a) one of the most critical of Edward in this space (which is not a bad thing, mind, people are free to do what they like) b) often get asks in which I am asked by anons to justify why I think poorly of Edward.

This is on top of the thousands of metas I've written pointing out various things from canon, where I've presented many arguments, and anons still will ask me to make more arguments.

This is fandom, anon, relatively objective observers who are privy to information the characters in the story don't have. We know Bella's exact thoughts, we know how Edward has interacted with her in private, and we even know Edward's private thoughts for at least the duration of Twilight because of Midnight Sun.

AND YET, I AM HERE.

And you ask this as if it should be obvious to the most casual observer.

Back to Your Ask

I've discussed this at length in posts I'm too lazy to look up at the moment but the crux of it is that

a) Edward's a beloved family member and it's deeply hard to think ill of those we love and we want to justify their actions

b) the family doesn't see most of what goes on with Bella and are only told things by Alice and Edward with Alice being firmly on Edward's side

c) Due to his having previously had a redemption arc in which Edward came back unprompted to the diet even though it must have been not only humiliating but terrifying, Edward comes across as one of the Cullens who best understands that human life is worth protecting and just why they're all doing the diet.

This particular moment though, I'd also give Edward a pass if I was present. To touch Bella at all, to move her like this, Edward has to be extraordinarily gentle and careful. If he was at all rough with her, at all, Bella would be dead or seriously injured (with her jaw crushed between Edward's fingers, her neck snapped, etc.) Basically, for Edward to do this at all, he's being incredibly mindful and the Cullens as vampires are very aware of that.

Add onto that that Bella can speak, when this is a guy who's hand is made of stone, he has to be holding her incredibly gently from his perspective for her to be able to speak at all (and not have a broken jaw).

Also from the outside perspective, where Bella and Edward are in this romantic relationship (even though they just got out of being broken up) and they all know Edward's deeply in love with Bella, this looks like an intimate gesture than it does a "LOOK AT ME" gesture. It's not something any of them would do, or a normal person would, but they're also not dating Bella/convinced they're soulmates with her.

Add into that that they're in the middle of a very intense day, in which Edward had just tried to kill himself and is very emotionally fragile, Bella's now asking to be turned directly, the Volturi barely pardoned them, and Edward is coming unglued with the idea that Bella's going to be turned and the Cullens aren't at the top of their game.

They're just trying to get through the conversation where they tell Edward (and Rosalie) that, yes, they actually do have to turn Bella.

This doesn't register as physical violence to them, and I don't blame them for this one.

[stranger-rants]

hey,

people are allowed to still not like a fictional character whether or not you think they’ve been redeemed. as black viewer, who actually really likes dacre, it’s completely okay if other black viewers to not like billy just because he sacrificed himself.

don’t know why billy apologists have a problem with people not wanting to feel sympathetic towards a racist. yes he’s a victim, but he can still be a persecutor, which he was. it’s nuanced and people are allow to not like, i repeat, a fictional character. racists aren’t owed forgiveness.

I don’t know who you think you’re preaching to, because I have never once said no one is allowed to dislike him. In fact, I’ve said the opposite multiple times including in posts discussing the racism in the show. Everyone is welcome to their own likes and dislikes and I fully understand why the things Billy has canonically said or done can be too much for people to endure. You see, I do not have a problem with people not having sympathy for racism. It is a systemic issue that generates a lot of trauma for a lot of people. It’s not my place to tell people how to feel about that. I just don’t believe prejudices can’t be unlearned or that a teenager should die for it.

I do have a problem with people ignoring abuse as a systemic problem. That involves people repeating really harmful ideas about how “bad survivors” like Billy should be handled, which includes a very pro-revenge, pro-punishment mindset that does more to perpetuate harm than it does to make up for any harm a person like him did. That is what the self proclaimed “antis” are obsessed with, and not only are they obsessed with repeating very harmful things like Billy, as a survivor, is too far gone to be redeemed, but they are obsessed with making sure that absolutely no one empathizes with Billy as a survivor. Not as a racist. As a survivor.

That is where the problem lies, because yes he is a fictional character. That does not mean that the people who like his character or relate to him in some way are automatically bigots. By contrast, liking the “right” characters doesn’t automatically make someone anti-racist. It is completely unfair to disregard the experiences of survivors and marginalized people who do relate to Billy by dedicating an entire space in this fandom to posting blatant lies and triggering content about Billy and fans of Billy because “antis” are hell-bent on making sure that every single person dislikes him because to them there’s no valid reason to care about Billy’s character.

There’s a huge difference between that and the utter insanity that has taken place the past few years in this fandom. Disliking a character and being mature about it by either blocking content of the character or having critical discussions of them is very different from making threats towards the actors, spamming tags and making screenshots of fanworks to mock people who like the character, joking about the abuse he endured saying he deserved it, lying about a victim of child abuse by treating him like an adult and exaggerating the harm they did as a result of their trauma, and creating a fanon version of Billy who loves cops and SA’s his sister to feel justified in hating him.

That’s not anti-racism, and that is not just “disliking” a character. If I see bullshit like that, especially since “antis” can’t seem to figure out that if you use his full name your posts will show up if you simply search his name, I am going to say something. He may be fictional, but I am not fictional nor are all the other people who grew up abused like him and developed maladaptive coping mechanisms to survive that labeled us “bad survivors.” When fans say he could not be redeemed, we hear that as survivors. When people say he deserved to be abused, tortured, and killed, we hear that as survivors.

So you think what you want. By all means. But it is nuanced which means that how people express their dislike matters.

[hellogoodbye14]

This is a post to all those problematic god damn posts out there revolving around Gwyn’s SA and her sex life. Can I just say that it doesn’t matter if you’re elriel or gwynriel. What matters is that you’re a fucking decent human being. If I see a gwyriel sprouting this stuff, I’d call them out too.

Like honest to god, support who you wish and write fics, make art, do your thing and ship who you want. They are fictional characters and you have a right to want what you want but for the LOVE OF FUCKING GOD. Stop attacking artists and creatives for displaying or writing Gwyn in consensual sexual situations. Real people, real victims are watching you let them know in UNKIND and DISRESPECTFUL words that their individuality revolves around their trauma. That they don’t have a straight path, that they don’t have the choice. You imply that it is ABUNDANTLY OKAY to assume that they should never act on their desires if they so wish. Some even implied, that the character is lying about her SA. WOW. Fuck you. As a person who has had to watch her cousin open up about her assault, only to see no one believe her in a misogynist society…. Well a big fuck you. The damage that caused was horrible and here you are sprouting that bullshit in levity like its no big deal, only because you think two fictional characters should get together.

GROW THE FUCK UP.

Stop this nonsense because you are doing harm to REAL people. No one, literally no one will stop you from shipping and loving who you want. You.do.not.need.to.go.out.of.your.way to comment and respond to art,posts,fics you do not like. You dont like what you see? IGNORE. You don’t agree? Fucking IGNORE. And if you feel inclined to be such a shit human being then have the fucking balls to send that problematic shit without the anonymous option. You wont because you know IT IS NOT RIGHT.

Everyone has their own journey of healing with their trauma. There is not one way to deal with it, there is no set time limit to it. Everyone will deal with it differently and I acknowledge that but straight up making such a disgusting assumption is absolute MADNESS. And it literally showcases how bad this fandom has become. It makes me sick.

There is not one god damn thing wrong with wanting a grown fictional woman to own her sexuality. If folks who love the character, want a healing arch for her and want to see her feel ready to act on her desire then THERE IS NOTHING FUCKING WRONG WITH IT. Once again, hate the character if you wish, but don’t sprout fucking bullshit like this. Just stay away. BE DECENT.

[anamericangirl]

Explain to me how you can simultaneously hold the belief that bodily autonomy trumps the right to life and, at the same time, obviously end when you're intentionally putting another life at risk.

For gods sake, I’ve explained it a million times.

Because that other life is using your body to sustain its own life. Its infringing on your bodily autonomy , not the other way around.

If you were equally dependent on the fetus as the fetus is to you, there would be no argument here. The entire premise of this is that a non-viable 8 week old fetus is completely dependent on your bodily organs, not the other way around.

How about you explain to me how the right to life automatically translates to the right to use a person’s body. How does the right to life mean you have to be forced to let another life use your body without your ongoing consent? What law states that? The right to life isn’t a right to someone else’s body. Please prove to me how it is if you think otherwise.

You claim that consent isn’t your argument when I argued that you can’t consent to a biological process ( which you agreed initially) therefore you should be allowed to terminate a pregnancy early on since you do not wish to continue the pregnancy .

But to this you responded with “but you do consent to that fetus when you choose to have sex so it has a right to your body “ ?? If consent isn’t your argument, why do you keep bringing up how consent to sex equals consent to the fetus when I try to argue why a fetus doesn’t have a right to your body. Especially since you don’t agree with abortion even in SA so your arguments are inconsistent.

What you’re actually saying by your logic is even if a fetus doesn’t have a right to your body ( aka rape cases by your own argument ) then you still can’t have an abortion. So what’s the point in arguing that it does to try and counter my argument ? If you want to be consistent and genuine, you wouldn’t bring up the fact that you think a fetus does have a right to your body therefore you can’t abort it because that argument falls apart when you answer the SA abortion question.

Also you questioning how I know that SA is underreported

Because there’s other ways of knowing, there’s reports from counselors, national surveys, hospitals ect . It’s a literal well-known fact that rape is the most underreported crime. Especially since SA court cases can be especially traumatic to victims, and how difficult the process of these court cases even is when handling rape cases. SA cases are quite difficult to prove as well ( which is also why a lot of victims don’t report it ) there’s a lot of stigma around it .You’re missing a lot of key details about it, about the fact that most happen with family members/ people you know and family friends which makes it even more hard for victims & only adds to the fear of reporting it/ reliving that trauma. It’s an incredibly invasive process, it’s a long one too and there’s a lot of trauma responses that can cause difficulty in the entirety of it.

"For gods sake, I’ve explained it a million times.

Because that other life is using your body to sustain its own life. Its infringing on your bodily autonomy , not the other way around."

If this is your explanation it makes no sense. It doesn't answer the question. It just makes your position even more nonsensical. I don't know why you think that explains how bodily autonomy can both trump the right to life and obviously end when you're intentionally putting another life at risk because it doesn't even address the issue.

You said bodily autonomy obviously ends when you're intentionally putting another life at risk in response to why mask mandates are ok. Mask mandates are the government infringing on your bodily autonomy. If bodily autonomy trumps the right to life then it trumps the right to life in all situations. Including whether or not you should be forced to wear a mask.

If it obviously ends when you are intentionally putting another life at risk then that is true in all situations. It can't sometimes trump the right to life and sometimes not trump the right to life. Bodily autonomy rights don't change depending on the situation you're in. Bodily autonomy gives you the right to your own body and no one else's.

Your explanation is the explanation of someone who doesn't know the rules and is making them up as they go along.

How is a baby that was forced into existence by the woman carrying them infringing on bodily autonomy simply by existing?

"The entire premise of this is that a non-viable 8 week old fetus is completely dependent on your bodily organs, not the other way around."

Yeah I get that's your premise but you haven't given a really sound or logical explanation as to why being depended on another person's organs changes the meaning of bodily autonomy and gives one person autonomy over two bodies and gives them the right to murder the dependent person.

Your premise is flawed and you just keep repeating yourself without actually explaining anything. And I think that's because you don't really understand what you're saying so you can't explain it. Repeating yourself is not an explanation.

"How about you explain to me how the right to life automatically translates to the right to use a person’s body. How does the right to life mean you have to be forced to let another life use your body without your ongoing consent? What law states that? The right to life isn’t a right to someone else’s body. Please prove to me how it is if you think otherwise."

I have already explained this to you several times but I'll try again.

The right to life is the right to live your life as you see fit until you die a natural death or forfeit that right based on your own choice.

The right to life means no other person can intentionally end your life. No one is allowed to murder you. Period.

The right to life is not the automatic right to use someone's body, but if you are in the process of using someone's body and the only way to stop you is to murder you then that's a problem because, like stated above, no one is allowed to murder you. Period.

The law very clearly states murder is illegal and abortion is the only time the law has allowed murder.

But I don't care what the law says because murdering innocent people is always wrong, regardless of what the law says. If murder was not against the law, I would say that's not ok and advocate for the law to change. Law isn't always right and it's time for you to stop acting like man made law is infallible and always correct.

Your right to bodily autonomy ends where another body begins and that is because the right to life is the most important right.

It really is common sense if you understand that making a decision about your own body and killing someone else are two different things.

And if you understand the right to bodily autonomy is, then you should also understand what bodily autonomy is not. If bodily autonomy is the right to make decisions about your own body, that, by default, means you cannot make decisions about the body of another person. Bodily autonomy also does not give you the right to murder someone else. You can't really understand bodily autonomy unless you also understand what it does not allow you to do.

You are acting like you have the right to make decisions about another person's body and the right to murder under the umbrella of bodily autonomy rights unless explicitly stated otherwise but that's incorrect. If you are assuming you can infringe on another person's rights to life and bodily autonomy to exercise your own bodily autonomy then, really, you are arguing that no one has bodily autonomy.

Everything else I've already responded to in other asks so if you want to see the answers I'll link them here because I don't feel like typing it all out again.

Consent

Underreported sexual assault (like honestly this is you just not understanding. You're assuming unreported means just unreported to the police but that's not what it means here lol. The 1% statistic was not based on sexual assault cases that had only been reported to the police.)

Cases of sexual assault

You don't have to agree with what I say but please at least try to do a better of job of understanding what I'm saying.