#because it’s such a common experience as a woman

[ravenmacduff]

Sorry that I'm about to write a treatise on monsterfucking. But this post sparked that little obsessive part of my brain that needs to talk about it. So, I see monsterfucking in a couple of different ways. The most basic and simple is Monster HOT. Monsters are inherently sexy. And writers and directors *coughs Del Toro* recognize this and play into it. The Asset was designed to be attractive with a nice butt and kissable lips.

But we also have to ask why Monster HOT? Well, from my own experience as a trans woman, the monster is always portrayed as "the other". Myself and people like me are constantly demonized. They see us as dangerous. They call us predators, freaks, forced into this societal position where there are legitimately people afraid of us. (This goes for other marginalized identities too)

Afraid in the same way that they would be of a monster. And I think that's where a couple of my own ideas come into place. The first is empathy for the monster. In seeing ourselves in the monstrous, we want to reach out and offer love and affection. The same love and affection that we, ourselves need, and often don't receive. There's many horror movies where the monster just wants to be loved and in the end is rejected. Or killed based on societal fear.

King Kong is one story. It's represented in the final quote of the movie "It was beauty that killed the beast". Kong's love for Ann Darrow, which it's been a while, but I believe was rejected in the 1933 film, and accepted in the 2005 film. Kong always was "the other" (and was suggested in criticism of the film to represent blackness) to Ann Darrow, a conventionally attractive white woman. Kong's love of Ann represented the fears of interracial marriage at the time. Kong craved love, and society doomed him. As someone who is also othered doesn't it make sense to empathize with him?

Shape of Water, again also plays with this but more explicitly. Our Protag, Elisa is a disabled (mute) woman, her best friends are her black co-worker and her gay neighbour. All three are marginalized people. All three are shown to face discrimination throughout the film. Del Toro made sure that the fact these people were othered was text, rather than subtext. The main antagonist, Colonel Strickland, of the story is a white cishet man. His aggression, disregard for others and need for domination are extremely evident from his introduction. He's the kind of man who would be a protagonist in any other horror movie. Back to Elisa, it's her otherness that allows her to see the humanity within The Asset. The intelligence, the capability for love. In the end it's that love that saved both of them, while Colonel Strickland was doomed by his hate.

Those are just two examples of empathic monsters. For myself of course I want to love and be loved, and for a long time the fear of rejection for being a trans woman stopped me from truly achieving that. But I am loved and I'm loved by others like me. Who don't fear me because it found a different way to womanhood. And so of course I love monsters, because it shows I can be loved too.

My second thought about monsterfucking relates to a loss of control. Your powerlessness against a creature 10 times stronger than you. Who has all sorts of ways to make you submit. In other words a non-con kink. A kink that is often highly reviled because of its implications, but also very common. I believe the woman in the picture that I'm responding to is specifically referencing her own disgust with dub- or non-con.

Loss of control is a huge kink because many people, especially women feel like they always have to be in control. In control of their emotions, in control of any situation, in control of their sexuality, in control for their own safety. The point of being in control of our sexuality has been hammered in so intensely that to accept that we even have desires is hard. We're not supposed to want sex, we're supposed to deny ourselves. Slut shaming, attacks against women for being too sexual, all reinforce that a woman is not allowed to want for herself. We crave a release, to stop thinking all the time, to allow ourselves to want.

While heterosexual sex is so focused on the man, on the masculine penis, that a woman's pleasure is oft put to the side. You still have to think about others even when you want pleasure yourself.

Well, the monster doesn't care. The monster is going to give you exactly what you want have been denying yourself. This goes for men too. Louis from Interview with a Vampire is a good example. His bisexuality is frowned on by society, but Lestat doesn't care. Lestat is going to show Louis exactly what allowing himself to let go and accept pleasure is like. And for most of the movie Louis continues to try and deny himself, until he finally lets go and accepts who he is.

Speaking of vampires that brings me to my last point. Monsterfucking as a way to get power. And the clearest example I can think of this is Twilight. Bella, while attracted to Edward, was more interested in receiving the power Edward has, than Edward himself. She wanted to be a vampire and this was clear from the beginning. But Edward had to be all Mormon about it. There's many people who find power in the monstrous. To take a piece of the monstrous into yourself and thus gain the same power. And power is sexy.

Werewolves are shown as power through their physical prowress. It's very rare you see a lanky, malnourished werewolf. *Looks at a certain series with distain*

Idk I kinda rambled on. But those are my thoughts

Every day I am thankful to not be a TikTok user

[hadesoftheladies]

‘Sex strikes’ aren’t the feminist win they appear to be. Here’s how to get really radical | Finn Mackay | The Guardian

So just read this entire article, and while there's worthwhile information on the history of separatism, 4B and political lesbianism, there's several statements Finn Mackay makes that grind my gears.

The main problem with the idea of a women’s sex strike is that rape exists. Much of the commentary in response to women’s videos and content openly makes this point, as young men reply that women don’t always have a choice. The slogan “your body, my choice”, which has circulated online since Trump’s victory, bleakly summarises this stance.

Rape is, obviously, never done with a woman's consent. But one must really ask, why are so many young women seeing celibacy as a legitimate solution? I recall a scene in Bottoms (2023) when the highschool girls gathered in a cirlce in the gym and the protagonist asked them how many of them had been raped. None of them raised their hands. When the protagonist asked, "Okay, what if we allow for grey areas?" all the girls raised their hands.

Rape is largely seen as something that is done to women walking home alone at night, outside on the street. It must be overt, obvious and completely unavoidable for it to be legit to the public mind. But many teenage girls and women experience rape in romantic relationships with men. SO MANY experience sexual abuse in initially consensual relationships. A LOT OF RAPE occurs during an initially consensual sex act and in initially consensual marriages. We've heard the stories of girls being choked in the middle of making out (without consenting), or being brutalized and disregarded when asking their romantic partner to stop. The normalization of rape in marriage is also proof of its prevalence.

THAT is why so many girls and women are willing to do away with it altogether. Even if it is not likely to change the hearts of men (and here I agree with Mackay), it is WISDOM and COMMON SENSE to close the bedroom door on a man or boy hyped up on violent pornography and indoctrinated by male supremacist notions.

Celibacy is not going to keep out every rapist, but it will reduce the odds of rape endemic to the culture of heterosexual dating/marriage. And even if it wasn't very effective in doing so, the solution certainly wouldn't be, "Hey, I know 60-80% of boys and men are literally primed to sexually brutalize you, but just follow your heart and take a chance anyways and maybe you'll find a good one despite your dogshit odds." Why are we sending girls to the lions' den because the lions will prowl anyway??? Hello?

It is also debatable whether the idea of a sex strike is inherently a feminist act. A problem with seeing a sex ban alone as somehow revolutionary is that it plays into the very problems that arguably created the need for activism in the first place. In this framing, sex is labour – work that women do for men, and can then limit, manipulate or withhold alongside demands for improved conditions. That is not radical. Sex has long been defined under patriarchy as something men want and women should do. Such understandings of sex are why it took so long for rape in marriage to be recognised as a crime, for example – because how could a husband take from his wife what was rightfully his by the law of marriage? Framing sex as women’s labour for men results in sex being commodified and objectified, and the problem is that what can be bartered, exchanged or sold can also be taken. This is not an empowering position from which to call for revolution between the sexes.

Except on a SOCIOECONOMIC SCALE, sex for women is very much already commodified, already labour and already exploited. Prostitution, surrogacy, etc are thriving industries at the moment, so sex (in addition to marriage and motherhood) can very much be defined as a kind of labour in modern society. Even if calling sex labour is also patriarchal rhetoric, it is also an economic fact. Marriages and reproductive labour are invaluable to a patriarchal economy.

SECONDLY, 4B rightfully recognizes sex as the domain men use to exercise their power over women. Patriarchy is fundamentally sexual and deeply intertwined with the heterosexual dynamic. In fact, for the most part, however unfortunate, it defines it. The question isn't whether sex is labour we can use to get men to give us our rights, but whether it is a reclaiming of power and the female identity by refusing men access, by refusing to acquiesce to the fundamental domain of patriarchal power.

The sexual exploitation of women is the gist of patriarchy. That's like it's main thing. By opting out whenever and wherever possible, the woman redefines herself in patriarchal society as explicitly the opposite of what Mackay and many Western liberals suggest she is doing by "sex striking." She is defining herself outside the heteropatriarchal framework and declaring herself an individual independent of the patriarchal state. Men would not be so enraged by this loss of sexual access if this meant nothing to patriarchal power.

It is a little funny to me that Mackay insists that 4B women are agreeing to patriarchal rhetoric by literally refusing to give men what they want and expect of women. These women know sex is expected of them, which is why they're saying no. But Mackay sees it as them adopting the patriarchal narrative themselves. Just . . . fascinating.

Additionally, sexual relationships with men, with or without abuse, are often the gateway to domestic and maternal exploitation. Part of 4B is refusing to marry men and mother children from or with them, both legitimate modes of socioeconomic patriarchal power. Women get pregnant and married purely in relation to sex with men. So sex with men is either the gateway to such exploitation or the justification for it.

The mainstream take on 4B frames it as a sex strike by young, marketable, heterosexual women. An alternative would be to reject such sexist constructs of sex and sexuality, and to imagine, and work towards, an egalitarian future where men and women are not divided up into predator and prey. Rather than a sex strike, there is another tried and tested form of activism, utilised by women and men the world over: a workers strike, the withdrawal of our wage labour that fuels the systems of capital that dare to govern us. Ban patriarchy, not sex.

This is one of her more mistifying statements. I agree with the first sentence entirely. But it goes downhill quickly from there. Imagining a world where men and women are equal does not erase the fact that for a huge chunk of history to the present, women are prey and men predators. That's just the reality. Imagining will not make it go away, and it isn't wrong for women to use language that highlights this reality, no matter how crude.

The second half is even more vague. To me, it's the equivalent of a shoulder shrug. Mackay has spent so much of the article discussing the pitfalls of 4B and separatist thought, and when pressed for an alternative, she just says "capitalism bad."

This is what I mean when I say the zeitgeist is severely divorced from women's experiences. Of course, class struggle is important, but women and men do not experience class struggle the same. We have had all sorts of revolutions over the course of history and a diversity of governmental structures to bat. Yet, communism, monarchy, capitalism and socialism have all failed to eradicate patriarchy. The nuclear family, the home, remains a stronghold in post-revolution societies. So the home, this cell of society, must be the primary battlefield on which human progress--women's liberation--is fought and won.

Like, this article is so shallow in its conclusions its tasteless. How will women "ban" patriarchy exactly? How will they do it on a governmental level if they can't even do it in their homes? How will they find the time and energy to fight for their own rights if they first have to fight for every other cause and then use the rest of that energy on their boyfriends/husbands/children?

The biggest flaw in anti separatist/celibacy/4B posts is that they all consisntently ignore the primary modes of women's socieconomic exploitation at the hands of men: sex, marriage and reproductive labor. AND LET'S BE CLEAR: all these aspects of women's sexuality and sex have been commodified LONG BEFORE our modern age. Girls and women were bought and sold into marriage in order to bear children for men's estate. Critics also frequently ignore the fact that female-only spaces consistently bolster feminist thought and activism. Female solidarity is a huge threat to patriarchy.

So if we as women aren't striking against the very spheres that men use to dominate us, then how on earth can we claim to be advocating for our own cause? How can we combat patriarchy and ignore it's primary functions? If we aren't getting rid of patriarchal institutions and reclaiming power from domains male supremacists have invaded (e.g. our sex lives) then how on earth could we possibly measure the progress of our own liberation?

We cannot keep "let them eat cake"-ing our way to women's liberation. Radical feminists more than ever need to embrace being anti gender, anti marriage, anti religion, anti cosmetics, etc. Or we're fighting for everyone and everything but ourselves.

[ro-bee]

THE COTL X EPIC AU CHARACTER LIST I JUST MADE

no beta we die like pancake polites

The Lamb as Odysseus.

I think lamb is perfect to picture the change of character ody experience, at first they have a pure heart, merciful! But with time and pain the old lamb dies and the ruthless monster is born.

(Fun fact this is more in line with my headcanons for goat but is time to let lamb shine🔥)

The Goat as Polites.

A bit ooc for my goat but I think it's ok, despite them being a little shit I think they are very reassuring and caring for lamb. Funky little goat 🔥🔥

Ratau as eurylochus

I think is an honest role for dadtau hmmm

Narinder as Athena oooor... Hear me out: PENELOPE!

Ok so... Athena is obvious because 1 I'm making a narilamb animatic with warrior of the mind and nari is Athena there obv but also her songs really give me nari vibes idk

But Penelope... Is basically just for the ship nari doesn't fit much with her... But still... will you fall in love with me again IS MAKING ME GO INSANE but yeah... Idk I can't chose...

Leshy as Polyphemus.

There is a line in Polyphemus song that goes "I take from you like you took from me" and that's so leshy coded... Idk I headcanons leshy like a big chaotic beast yes but also like the actual legend of leshy, specifically the ones where he's more of a neutral god that coexist with humans but kills them if they take too much from nature. Also bro get blinded too

Heket as Circe

I love a strong woman that only cares about protecting the people she loves the most, I think Circe is the perfect choice

Also Circe allures men in her palace, cooks for them and then she transforms them into food basically haha is funny in my head.

Kalamar as Poseidon

Before you tell me "but he's pathetic! " yes he is and Poseidon is as well!

I like it to be an escalation of confidence to cowardness. He starts all angry and at the end he's crying in the shower.

Shamura as Zeus maybe but also hear me out : ATHENA!!

Is funny because shamura and Athena have so much in common lol

But first choice was Zeus because Athena was/is taken and I wanted them to still be one of the gods... Also I can see them making lamb choose between themselves and their crew... Evil like the time they made me kill my faves >:( but idk...

But Athena again they have so much in common but also... Having shamura on lamb's side is strange to me but aaaadfd you feel me?

The red fox as scylla

We are the same you and I... I don't think I have to say more 🥴

Claunek as the prophet

Yeah I think is obvious

Chemak as Hermes or Aeolus

Mostly for the vibe and because both give lamb something really important lol

Sozo as Aeolus or Hermes

Same as before

Jalala as Calypso.

Yes yes is because of the crush on lamb

Webber as Telemachus.

Just for the vibes and he's my child

Helob as antinous

Again vibes...

Baal as apollo.

You know at this point I'm going for exclusions but I can see that and I like what I see

Aym ar hares.

Because angry kitty is my fave

Forneus as era

Because she's mother 🔥

Kudaai as Ephesus

Another obvious one, more because of the character than the song I guess

Monch can be Aphrodite

But idk... It's hard because my head goes back to the hares and Aphrodite relationship...

So Aphrodite is open to changes

Mystic seller as Charybdis???

Maybe??? Or maybe not

is hard chat

Anyone that was left out: I don't know who I should give them lol pls help

[velvetvexations]

Whenever people bring up egg discourse they're often like, "you are acting like we're harassing the poor defenseless men by suggesting they could be a trans woman... Why are you so defensive, it's not bad to be a trans woman, even if the person is really a man they can handle being called an egg" and like, sure... But I feel like they never take into account that it's actually not that unlikely to be a trans guy trying to be stealth (or just minding you own business and not wanting to come out to everyone around you) and have trans-friendly people in your circle look at you, assume they clocked a transfem egg, and decide to comment on it. What happens then when they start making little comments or jokes about how you must secretly be a woman because they "noticed" your alleged feminine vibes, or how you seem to be "suspiciously" interested or knowledgeable about trans topics ? You're put in a shitty position, and if they insist, you might even be forced to out yourself to make them stop because they're convinced they're being soooo woke and helpful. Even if you managed to shut them down early on, you still have to deal with the fact that they really implied they could confidently sense some sort of inner female essence or whatever in you and actually brought it up out loud (even worse if they straight up mention the "signs" they see in you)... Not dysphoria inducing at all ! And it's not some sort of "what if" hypothetical scenario that could never realistically happen (while I haven't witnessed it IRL or anything, I've heard some people mention like, queer acquaintances in a new friend group doing that). Granted it shouldn't be extremely common either but like... The fact that it's a possible scenario should be enough to make people more mindful of their words. Sometimes the "cis" guy with "trans vibes" is indeed trans. In the other direction. That's where you got the trans vibes come from. You can't always tell. It's not about "protecting the poor little cis guys from the mean egg jokes"... Some of y'all are just convinced that someone you assumed was a cis guy could never be a trans guy.

It is also not great to ignore that cis people can also experience gender dysphoria and it's generally not great to hurl around "you must a girl because you're such a girly guy with girly interests" shit for multiple reasons, but unsurprisingly these people also completely forget trans men exist.

[longsufferingcritic]

I didn't consciously intend to post about misogyny in fiction more and more recently, but it's got me thinking.

It's depressing how being a woman means most of the fiction I like -- even when it's genuinely well-written, compelling, and personally meaningful; even some of my very favorite fiction of all time -- will not treat women as equals. At best female characters are usually relegated to less-important supporting roles, or at worst they're written with active misogyny (sexist stereotypes, fridging/lost lenore, being harshly punished for mild or non-issues while male characters get away with worse, normalizing gender-based violence, etc). To name just one example, The Hobbit is among the most famous and beloved works of literature despite not including a single female character, a fact that is rarely even brought up when discussing it. Reportedly less than half of the most popular movies from the last 40 years pass the Bechdel test ("do two women talk to each other about something other than a man?") which is such a low bar that even many of the films that do pass are still misogynistic. Misogyny and male predominance in fiction is so common/"normal" that most people don't even notice it unless it's exceptionally severe.

And even if a work of fiction itself doesn't mistreat female characters, its fandom usually will. Fandom misogyny is an especially disturbing pattern since it's often apparent that those people aren't just bad at interpreting fiction -- they're using female characters as a lightning rod to express misogynistic beliefs they actually hold in real life. Take male-on-female domestic abuse for example: I've seen people parrot the very same excuses that are used for victim-blaming in real life ("she disobeyed him and made him mad so she had it coming", "she's unlikable and he's great so why should I care", "actually SHE'S the REAL abuser because she was rude to him one time", etc). I've seen people openly fantasize about canonically abusive male characters murdering their female victims because "she's a total bitch so she deserves it and he deserves a happy ending". Do you think those fans treat real abuse victims any better? It's genuinely spine-chilling to think about.

This post has been sitting in my drafts for over a month because I can't think of a clever way to wrap up these observations into a solid argument or anything. It's just horrible to experience. Goddamn.

[wavesoutbeingtossed]

All the talk today about a man having the luxury of dating younger while getting older to delay growing up (marriage, kids, etc.) reminds me of George Clooney. He had a short marriage when he was in his late 20s/early 30s (before his career blew up) and then was known as the most eligible bachelor and even made bets with people like Nicole Kidman and Michelle Pfieffer that he'd never get married again. He dated many women, some of which were even older than him, but the majority were not. He became engaged when he was 53 and his future wife 36. On paper, it seems like she's "old" but he is 17 years older than her. He became a first-time father at the ripe old age of 56. He could do this because he is a man. Who did not have to worry about aging like a woman. Or having children in his 50s.

Hollywood (and the world in general) is full of stories like that. Men have the luxury of time that women don’t in that situation. They have the luxury of getting their shit together (or not) on their own timeline. It’s sad and unfair but also true, and I have seen this happen in my real life with friends.

I feel a whole rant, or at least stream of consciousness, brewing about the ways in which people of childbearing age who wish to experience that are in just such a no-win situation, especially in the public eye. Voice that you want it and you may get labelled desperate or traditional or whatever. Voice that you don’t and you’re attacked as a threat to society or immature. It makes it so hard to have discussions (eg in relation to TTPD or Taylor’s discography at large) because it’s so fraught and involves all kinds of sociological constructs. And again: it’s something that isn’t given a second thought for men.

[nothorses]

hot take but I think the "we're only talking about people who identify as queer when we talk about the queer community" thing was and is one of the worst arguments in defense of the word.

I am talking about you when I say "the queer community", and "queer people", and "queer studies". I'm describing a thing that a large group of people have in common, and you share that thing in common. Your individual comfort with the word doesn't change the definition of it.

I'm sorry you don't like that word. You don't ever have to call yourself that, and you don't have to like it, and I won't ever call you that if you don't want me to.

What I am going to do, however, is decide what language I use based on A) how inclusive it is, and B) how well it communicates my point to the relevant audience.

"Inclusive" here is an important criteria; this refers to the number of people who should be included, that are included, ideally without some kind of weird hierarchy (like we see in "LGBT+" and variations). The technical definition is what we're talking about here- putting personal comfort aside, could the word "queer" describe you?

There will always be someone who doesn't like a particular word for themselves- even if it could apply. Lots of people don't like "LGBT+" (I don't really), even if it technically applies to them. You're not more important than they are.

You can identify one way on a personal level, and still understand that when we're discussing the larger community of people and the histories attached to it, you're included in that- even if you don't personally identify with the specific word we're using. Your story, your voice, and your presence matters.

Y'all need to learn to distinguish "broad term for an experience I share with others" from "personal identity label I use to describe my individual experience to others". ASAP.

[imnotstandingstill]

This is an interesting statistical breakdown. The math is fine, but the way it is applied is interesting. The initial argument is regarding “late term abortions,” abortions performed after 21 weeks. And then a set of statistics are given for the reported reason (I’m assuming the reason given by the mother at the time of the abortion) behind their decision. Again, that’s fine.

However, it appears the percentages are a breakdown of termination decisions throughout all stages of pregnancy, not just late term. Also, I can’t find these specific numbers, and the ones I can find are quite a bit different.

These numbers are based on abortions done in Florida, as it is the only state that records a reason for every abortion done in the state. Also of note, “no reason” could mean any number of things, anywhere from the woman felt none of the options accurately portrayed their situation to they did not want to disclose a reason.

There are some other numbers as well just above these that reflect reasons from a study done in 2004 by the Guttmacher Institute where they surveyed 1,209 “post-abortive” women. Of note, these numbers reflect only the reason the mother deemed most significant, however: “89% gave at least two and 72% gave at least three; the median number of reasons given was four, and some women gave as many as eight reasons out of a possible 13,” per the results section of the Guttmacher Institute’s research paper on the survey.

My point being the numbers can vary greatly just based on population size alone, not to mention the method of how the numbers are collected. However my bigger point is that these numbers are not broken down by reason and gestational age, just the reason. So these numbers cannot directly be applied to late term abortions in the same way as it can be applied to abortions overall. Not to say that it doesn’t, but there’s no evidence that it does. However, I do find it interesting that, in the data I found at least, fetal anomalies account for 0.95% in the first data set and 3% in the second data set, and that is because of anatomy scans. Let me explain.

Anatomy scans are done at the 20 week mark (generally anywhere from 18 to 22 weeks gestation, depending on scheduling/availability). The reason the 20 week mark is used is because that is the point that all major structures are formed. This diagram from mothertobaby.org is a pretty good condensed illustration of the general development of major structures.

One major structure not mentioned here is the lungs; the outer structure of the lungs are formed by roughly 16 weeks, with the inner structures responsible for the gas exchange between oxygen and carbon dioxide considered mature around 36-38 weeks (though these structures continue to grow and mature well into the toddler years as the lungs grow with baby), which is why preterm and especially extremely preterm infants can require significant respiratory support to survive.

Because week 20 is generally when all major structures are formed, is it the earliest point that structural defects can be noticed. Any structural defects are markers for potential major fetal anomalies. These anomalies may be immediately identified as very concerning (examples being omphalocele, myelomeningocele aka spinal bifida, or even missing organs) or simply an area of concern that should be monitored just in case. The CDC has info here about how often different defects happen. I have extensive experience with a lot of these defects and would be happy to discuss any in detail if anyone is interested, but long story short, converting to percentages and adding them up comes to roughly 1.3% of pregnancies leading to some kind of congenital defect of varying severities and treatability (although defects in twin pregnancies are not included here, but I’m not sure how selective reductions are figured into abortion statistics so we won’t worry about that today). With some of these defects it is most common to see it in conjunction with another if not multiple other defects, making treatment much more difficult.

All this to say, if a mother (or parents together) decide to abort a pregnancy due to a health problem in the fetus, that health problem is usually not discovered until the 20 week ultrasound/anatomy scan. If you then take into account medical discussions, deliberation time, and scheduling barriers, this would put those abortions after the 21 week mark. If 0.95% of abortions are done as a result of major fetal anomalies, most if not all of these decisions would have been the result of findings on the 20 week fetal anomaly scan. And if roughly 1% (or 0.9% per the data collected in 2021 as presented by the CDC) of abortions are “late term,” meaning occurring after week 21, than it makes sense if most if not nearly all are done as a result of major fetal anomalies. So more than likely, nearly all if not all are done for major fetal anomalies and/or life of the mother.

I am not saying there are never exceptions. No one knows everything that happens in the world. But this is why if you say you are fact-checking, it is importantly to make sure the facts are used appropriately and accurately. Otherwise, that’s how disinformation spreads. This is why we say late term abortions are loved and wanted children that are lost because of an impossible and difficult decision. They do not deserve to have salt rubbed in their wounds as they mourn a child they lost or couldn’t care for the way they would have needed to be cared for.

“Late term abortions are so rare we do not even need to worry about them and they ONLY happen for life of the mother situations.”

Ok let’s fact-check that.

Firstly:

.065% of abortions are because a woman’s life is endangered, and .666 are because of a fetal abnormality

So 0.731% of abortions would even possibly be argued as justified in that sense, and the likely good that all of those were caught AFTER 21 weeks is low. Right?

So let’s address late terms being uncommon. Abortions at later gestational durations are comparatively uncommon: only 1.0% of abortions take place at or after 21 weeks after the first day of the pregnant person's last menstrual period

Yet, researchers estimate there were 1,026,700 abortions in 2023. "That's the highest number in over a decade, [and] the first time there have been over a million abortions provided in the U.S. formal health care system since 2012,"

1% of 1,026,700 is 10,276.

0.731% (which is what could be feasibly argued be be “necessary” remember? And even that I would disagree in many of those cases,) is 7505.177.

Roughly 10,276 abortions a year are late term. Let’s put this into some context.

In the United States, there are approximately 4,000 unintentional drowning deaths each year, which is about 11 deaths per day.

In 2022, there were 3,790 civilian fire deaths in the United States.

In 2022, the FBI reported that there were 4,251 victims of murder who identified as female in the United States. A further 93 murder victims were of an unknown gender in that year.

Sooooo… your idea of “so rare it isn’t worth discussing” is more than twice the annual American deaths by drowning. More than twice the annual American deaths by fire, more than twice the number of American women murdered a year.

And even IF we decide that the 7,505 were 100% necessary and unavoidable (which I highly doubt) that still leaves 2,762 late term abortions that weren’t. 8 viable babies a day.

That’s significantly higher than the body counts of any serial killer in history. 8 a day. Minimum.

[edwinisms]

i like to think, as a hc or a theory (because it’s definitely possible), that charles has had a few kisses throughout his high school years, sure, but past that he’s undeniably a virgin– well, kind of undeniably, because I think he’d deny it if found out by trying to use technicalities (“I mean that one time there was friction involved–“), but to any reasonable person, and by occult standards (see: edwin being a virgin sacrifice), he’s a virgin.

and i think this because it seems like him to fib about his level of experience (like he did when agreeing he’d sleep with crystal, matching her level of casualness about it) when in the presence of people who do, actually, have experience, in the hopes he doesn’t come off as lame or childish. given what we know about his “friends” when he was alive, they seem like the type to have teased or bullied boys– especially in their own circle– who haven’t gotten laid, or at the very least would’ve thought less of someone for it. and given what we know about charles, i don’t think he’d be nearly as sleazy and inconsiderate as his group when it comes to landing girls with the primary intention of adding to his body count. and considering he’s only supposed to be 16? and has never mentioned any significant relationships pre-death? it just seems unlikely.

all that to say– I can see him maintaining that facade of experience and confidence literally right up until the moment it matters, and in the heat of the moment getting nervous and embarrassed because “uhhh. so I may have been exaggerating some things.” though he’s not totally clueless either, I think it’d take a bit of a soft heart to heart moment for him to be reassured enough that he won’t fuck up and hurt his partner to go any further.

anyway not sure what the relevance of this is, but it’s something.

[fallloverfic]

Thinking about how people assuming Seth isn't into men is also a big reason why Osiris is an idiot, and Ra called Osiris out on that line of thinking in S02E78. In fact, she calls him, "Arrogant, foolish Osiris" (among other things) for this. Like that just happened in canon and I guess folks slept through that episode because people keep insisting he only loves Nephthys/is straight/can't like men.

Like people say "Seth isn't gay" and I think that's fair, but I don't think he's het, either. He doesn't evince interest in women generally. Osiris assumes Seth does because Osiris doesn't understand love. To him, Seth must be into goddesses solely because they can have babies.

Osiris does not comprehend that it isn't Nephthys' gender that attracts Seth to her: it is herself as a person. Osiris has no regard for that. He does not fathom Seth as a complex person with agency. To Osiris, "to love someone is to expect something from them." (S01E49). He catalogues people into capabilities: if I could provide the same things for Seth, Seth would love me. This disregards any relationship Seth might have with Osiris, Nephthys, or anyone else. He stole Seth's seed for who knows how many years. He removes Seth's agency in many ways.

This is a really common romance trope with the obsessive non-partner: "I'm better looking, I can provide more/the same, why do you love [love interest] and not me?"

Because the person they're pursuing has agency and love is complicated. This thinking ignores that. It treats people as goals to be reached or objects to be won.

Osiris sees no issue with this, despite his alleged wisdom, because "love" as he understands it, is "a selfish emotion that feeds on personal gain." (S01E49). Osiris is being selfish, and he'll do whatever he has to, destroy whoever and whatever he needs to, in order to achieve the object of his desire that is Seth. As Ra says, Osiris is "a rotting fruit" who "rot[s] those around" him. (S02E78).

So far as we can tell, Seth isn't in love with women generally. The only other woman to whom he potentially showed any sexual advances was maybe Isis? (Seth to Isis, "I had asked you to sleep with me." S01E39). But we don't actually know how he framed that offer/request when he tried to get her to join him in revenge, let alone if he actually wanted to sleep with her or just wanted to get revenge on Nephthys and/or Osiris, or if he just convinced himself that's what he was asking Isis to do and that's part of why Isis rejected him. We do know he's in love with Nephthys (S01E49). Or was in the past. Lately, he cares for Horus. I would argue he's demi-bisexual or demi-pansexual, but also isn't a person who's into labels. Not everyone is. Queerness is a spectrum.

Yes, he calls relations between male humans disgusting in a spur of the moment thought in S02E36, and that's sort of it. Seth generally thinks ill of humans, and he's not given to think kindly of Horus at the time, either. That's also not definitive. He changes (S02E70). He also would not be the first person in existence to internalize bigotry that would possibly target himself. Plenty of marginalized people are/act bigoted against their own people/themselves. At the time, Seth was also ill and trapped in a stronghold of people who hate him, safe on the kindness of humans. There are so many reasons that he might respond weirdly or not in a way that reflects his entire state of mind about his own wants. No one was asking him, "Are you gay?" or even "Would you date and/or fuck a guy if you had a chance?" Horus was carrying on a facade to fool Hanekate in a complex situation that Seth hated for many reasons, and Seth was understandably shocked.

I don't think he likes men generally. I think his body reacts to things (Osiris, Foreign God), as bodies tend to, which doesn't necessarily mean anything about his sexuality. But his being into Nephthys also kind of says nothing about his wants. He wants Nephthys. The person. Not a gender. His lack of being into a specific gender generally does not mean he solely likes women or cannot be into men or must be forced into it or something. He loves people on an individual level.

When he rejects Osiris, it's not because Osiris is male, but because Seth cares platonically for Osiris solely as a brother and monarch.

Osiris to Seth in S01E41: "What am I... ...to you? Am I just the king that rules over the land that you protect? Am I just your brother born from the same womb? What about besides that? Have you ever even thought of me as something more?"

Seth: "Why do you need to be more than that?"

Ra to Osiris in S02E78, "You think that Seth turns away from you because you are also a male god? And you think Seth desires female gods because of their power of creation? . . . If that is the conclusion you have come to, then it is proof that you are already breaking down."

It's all right there. It didn't need to be that overt because you can see it in the rest of the story, too, but the overtness is now there. Clear as day. Osiris' line of thinking about Seth's affections is wrong. And to imitate that is foolish.

It's Seth's deep love for individuals that allows him to open his heart to Horus (S02E70). Osiris and even Nephthys do not see Seth for who he is. Horus does. He refuses to forget. And that's why Seth cares for him, because it's Seth's deepest wish (S01E40-1).

In sum, assuming Seth loves Nephthys because she's a woman and this is the end-all statement about his sexuality/interests will get Ra to laugh at you just like she laughed at Osiris for assuming basically the same thing.

(Also assuming all protagonists and/or love interests in boys love stories have to be gay to have relationships with other men is really weird. Plenty of protagonists are bisexual, pansexual, undeclared, or questioning)

Reply 1

Reply 2

[duskdog]

Very good thoughts here on Steph's conservatism, esp re: punitive justice. She's been on the "losing" side of that of the revolving prison door for her whole life. Dad was in and out, and rather than make her life better, it only made it worse. Not only did Dad never reform, but the stress of having a parent who's in and out can't be denied. Visiting Arthur in prison and listening to him rant about Batman rather than just be with his family (can you imagine him spending that short, precious time expressing how much he misses his little girl? of course not), dealing with Arthur's lawyers and showing up to support him at his court appearances and helping gather paperwork and maybe even having to testify sometimes, having to adjust to shifting dynamics within the house and the daily routine when he's gone and then having to shift again once he's out... it's all exhausting. There's no actual relief there, just an endless cycle of bad and worse and bad and worse. At least he can't hit mom or lock Steph in the closet, yes, but his shadow is always there (probably calling every chance he gets to complain and/or demand money for his commissary). And given how he's shown to react to being put away in the first place, I don't think it's a stretch to say he probably takes out his anger at Batman and authority in general on his family. It's like they're unwitting secondary antagonists in Steph's life -- constantly poking the dragon, but never actually slaying it. It's no wonder she'd be in favor of locking criminals away forever and throwing away the key... or just ending them straight-up, because they always break out in Gotham anyway, don't they? I think it's a little more ambiguous regarding her feelings on reproductive rights. As far as I recall, we're never actually shown how she feels about abortion in general. We see her lash out angrily at the very idea of termination when it comes to her own pregnancy at least twice, yes... but that's also, from my experience, a pretty common reaction, even among some people who whole-heartedly believe in a woman's right to choose. Some women can't bear the thought of going through with that themselves -- just like some women can't bear the thought of carrying a baby to term, even though they have no problem with other people making that choice. We also see her lash out at some friends at school for acting like her having a baby is cool because she gets to miss school and gets a lot of attention... which is fair, because that's a childish way of looking at it. It's completely dismissing the actual stress of being a 15-year-old who's visibly pregnant and obviously going through a difficult time. She expresses that she thinks her classmate who kept a baby was stupid, which is in line with the rest of her conversation with these girls. Unfortunately, that doesn't really tell us much about what she actually thinks her friend should have done. Put the baby up for adoption, like Steph does? Or terminate the pregnancy? What does Steph think about the choices of other women? We just don't know, other than that she obviously doesn't think being a teen mom is cool at all (though she will waver on that a few times, as she struggles with her own desire to keep her baby -- once again, absolutely understandable).

Obviously, we can't really divorce the writing from the writer entirely. But, from an IC perspective, even if Steph is actually anti-choice, I suspect her feelings on the matter are rather complex. As far as I'm aware, we've never seen any sign that the Browns are religious in any way. That doesn't mean they're not, because quite a lot of people hang onto religious sentiment passed down through generations while not actively worshipping, but we have no reason to believe Steph would have a religious motivation for her conservatism. However, I think it would be fair to speculate that her own experiences may give her strong feelings in that direction. Her father was outright abusive, and her mother was detached -- unreachable and unsupportive -- for much of her childhood. How often must Steph have felt like an unwanted child?? Locked in a closet by Arthur because he didn't want to see/deal with her, and not let out for god-knows-how-long by her mother because Crystal was too stoned to notice she was gone? Invisible. Unwanted. Unloved. Did she wonder if her parents wished they had aborted her? Did she wonder if she would have been better off if they had?

Some people do have that reaction to their childhood abuse experience. Some people come to the conclusion that it's kinder, better, not to bring a child into the world if it's only destined to suffer. But other people may feel differently about their experience, and I think Steph is one of those. She's always been one to rage against the dying of the light. Though the question may have occurred to her, I don't think she would have concluded that "yes" was the answer to "would I have been better off if I had never been born". We've seen that part of her reaction to her own abuse has been to become protective over other children. To Steph, the idea of a child being unwanted, like she may have felt, may be horrifying, yes. But I suspect that the solution, to her, is to give that child a life where it is wanted. Even if it can't be with her. And aborting that fetus would be the ultimate gesture of abuse and neglect and rejection -- something Stephanie Brown just cannot abide from herself, at the very least. And I wouldn't be surprised if she felt that way about other potential mothers, as well.

People who want to argue that Steph isn’t or shouldn’t be written as being innately conservative and committed to imprisonment as a punishment and source of retributive justice confuse me.

Steph. The character who has multiple storylines revolving around her frustration that people don’t get the punishment they deserve. Who has a written history of being failed over time and hurt because people didn’t punish people who committed crimes around and to her.

Who has a repeated tendency to punch male characters for upsetting her (Arthur Brown, Tim, Tito, Dean).

Who has writers as diverse as Chuck Dixon, Jon Lewis, Mariko Tamaki and James Tynion exploring this in their writing of her?

Steph mentally sides with victims and seeks to give criminals what she thinks they deserve. She puts herself in those shoes pretty often in her perspective: she originally went after her father because she was mad he was getting away with committing crimes; she sided with and was completely derailed from hero work by the question of whether her work as a vigilante had value – because it caused problems punishing criminals – by the Victim Syndicate; who gets mad over the concept of criminals getting extra chances to reform when they’ve proven themselves to be recidivists in opposition to other Bats like Bruce’s optimism that people can change (Arthur, frequently; also Harvey Dent in One Bad Day).

This is a beat that gets used often, for Steph. It’s imbued in a lot of her characterisation. Just because you like a character does not and should not mean that you have to agree 100% with their perspectives and politics, and vice versa.

[gay-otlc]

Perpetually baffled by the fact that people seem to think "I never felt like a girl/woman" is a rare transmasc experience? Like. Dude. Quite a lot of transmascs feel that way. I really don't think that's an uncommon way to be transmasc??

[lollytea]

Tbh I think the Barbie movie handled its theme of existentialism better than the feminism.

[cervinae-canine]

i hope it's okay to say this here because i saw the post you made about heavymedic shippers but as a woman who selfships with them as a polycule it honestly hurts me alot when people say that women are not allowed to ship themselves with medic or heavy because they're gay and wouldn't like them back. these characters make me happy. why am i not allowed to find comfort in them? because it goes against your made up headcanons? i don't understand why people have such a superiority complex over something as up to interpretation as fictional characters' sexualities.

it's the misogyny.

[thebestusernamepossible]

Just saw someone say ‘white people shoudlnt make POC characters because they don’t understand them’ ??? Girl you became so progressive you circled back into racism

[cursed--alien]

It just occurred to me that I've actually never been catcalled, even when I had bahongaroos. I guess I have Ugly Privilege :3