#but it feels really stigmatized and so many men just refuse

[roguemonsterfucker]

Major shout out to all the men in the thread I referenced here saying they got vasectomies for their partner.

Y'all are the real ones

[justpottytime]

okay so I’m starting this off by saying that most of these don’t include omo but this is a thought that I really want to get out there

so I have basically no idea how to explain the thought process of this but it seems, to me at least, and it has been brought to my attention due to Turning Red…. but it feels like there is a stigmatized view of men and women regarding the different things they go through. (Periods, stereotypes, private parts) which creates a lot of shame and embarrassment whenever it’s brought up and some end up making fun of or getting outright angry about those things (just look at the Turning Red reviews)

I honestly have no idea if what I’m saying makes sense but a thought has been circulating in my brain about this friend group (or polycule if you want) being extremely comforting and assuring whenever these things are the center of attention

before I get into this, in this group there is an equal amount of boys and girls, there can be as many friends in this friend group as you want. But in these prompts, they’re all from the same friend group :)

So you know how in media a guy sometimes gets hit in the balls and it’s played for laughs. I get the comedy aspect but what about the comfort aspect? So character (A) with a penis ends up getting hit in the balls, however that happens is up to you. But he kneels over and grips his crotch as pain radiates through his cock. A’s friends call out to him, obviously concerned. Not only is he in immense pain at the moment but he is also extremely embarrassed and self-conscious now as everyone’s attention is now on him and what he’s holding. The guys, of course, are sympathetic and ask a lot of questions and help him get back on his feet. But A is mostly worried about the girls’ reactions, he had quite a lot of girls kick him in the balls when he was in school for fun, which resulted in him getting laughed at. But the girls of this friend group don’t act like that, they check to make sure he’s okay and stuff like that, much to his shock. About ten minutes later or so they can still tell that he’s still pretty embarrassed about it. And everyone is quick to cuddle A and assure him that it’s fine and no one’s judging him

Character with a vagina (B) is on her period, and she is currently hanging out with a character with a penis (C) so they are chilling and everything’s fine… until B freezes, looks down, and runs to the bathroom. C is very much confused, but then he looks down at the couch that they were sitting on to see a noticeable sized blood patch on the furniture. C immediately understands and goes to clean it up. But when they do, B still hasn’t come out of the bathroom yet. C checks on B and hears slight sniffling and B sheepishly asks if C has a change of clothes and a pad or tampon. C actually does have those things since he keeps period products on hand in case if one of his friends has an emergency like this. So he gets her the stuff followed by a sheepish “Thank you…” and B later comes out, all red-faced and teary-eyed. C is surprised to see his friend so distraught but gives her a hug anyway. The embarrassment + the period hormones are making her emotional and she just starts apologizing for staining the couch, crying over something so silly, etc. Basically things she doesn’t need to apologize for. C shushes her and assured her there’s nothing to be embarrassed about and that it happens to all girls

Character with a vagina (D) and character with a penis (E) are on a nature walk together. E notices that D is getting squirmy and asks what’s wrong. D shyly admits they need to pee, E just says to go outside which D immediately refuses. D doesn’t have a dick like E has and she doesn’t want to take all her clothes off just to pop a two minute squat, she also admits she can’t hold a squat that long. E then agrees and says “Fair enough” but an hour later and D is whimpering, holding her crotch, anything to keep the flood in. E then just tells D to go, he doesn’t want her to end up hurting herself from holding it in. E says that if D has a hard time squatting, he could help hold her up, he just won’t look. D immediately refuses and it’s revealed that she’s also bladder shy. E comes up with an idea and just goes “Take your pants off, I promise I won’t look. And I have an idea, but I need you to trust me.” D finally does and takes her pants and panties off. And now she’s just standing there pantsless in the middle of the route, her face is burning up right now. Sure, this route is very vacant but that doesn’t mean no one will come around! Hastily, D calls for E and states that she’s ready and she’s potty dancing at this point, E leads her behind a tree and encourages her to squat and that he’ll hold her up, keep in mind he’s aiming his eyes toward the sky out of respect. D whimpers and squats down and E, sticking to his word, holds her up. D whimpers and goes “E… E, I can’t. I-It won’t come out!” E starts rubbing over where her sore bladder is and pushes down lightly, he gives her little tickles too and soon, D moans and lets the floodgates open. The pee lasts for a while and E is rubbing her back reassuringly, very proud of her

I don’t know, just something about people with opposite genitalia reassuring their friends when something “embarrassing” happens is a surprisingly wholesome thought

apologies if the first part didn’t make much sense, I’m tired. But holy shit did this get long

Ok but I actually kinda love this - it's so ingrained in our culture to laugh or be grossed out about these things, but it's really nice to flip the script and respond with comfort and reassurance instead! Yeah, being kicked in the balls DOES suck, getting period blood on the couch IS embarrassing, that doesn't always need to be the butt of a joke! We can be nice about things instead... And of course, the pee shyness thing is one of my favourite tropes honestly, holding someone up because they're bad at squatting is just too adorable!

Thanks for the ask!

... @littleleaks172257 doesn't this sound like things we'd do to our OCs? XD

[mariacallous]

On Thursday, November 30, the Russian Supreme Court will consider a request from the Justice Ministry to ban the “international LGBT movement” as an “extremist” organization. Exactly what constitutes this “movement” is unclear — it was invented by ministry officials. But the absurdity of the case shouldn’t overshadow the danger it poses: the court’s decision could lead to millions of queer people being declared illegal. We asked our readers to share the realities of life as an LGBTQ+ person in Russia, how they view the authorities’ new initiative, and what advice they have to offer to other members of their community. We’ve translated some of the most notable responses we received and are publishing them below.

Irina

Yekaterinburg

My girlfriend and I have been together for 20 years now, and for the last ten of those years, we’ve been unable not only to hold hands but even just to fix each other’s hair or wipe a smudge off one another’s faces — for fear of attracting unwanted attention.

After my father found out I was a lesbian, he didn’t speak to me for 11 years — right up until his death. My mom condemns and refuses to accept me. My neighbors have called me a faggot and a dyke. Because I spent my childhood and adolescence in a sort of cocoon, it was very painful when I came out. So I can imagine what’s about to happen; we’ve already gone through it and survived it.

[Right now,] it’s better to direct one’s energy at preventing Putin from getting reelected. Then we can fight for whatever rights we want. The Putin regime persecutes all types of “otherness.” Until there’s regime change, there’s no point in whining about it.

The gradual stigmatization of LGBTQ+ people in Russia was always going to lead to something like a ban of the LGBTQ movement as “extremist.” I’m not surprised; I’ve already stopped rolling my eyes at the absurdity of the laws our government enacts.

Ayur

Moscow

I’m 33. It's funny that the so-called Supreme Court is recognizing me as an “extremist” on my birthday, November 30.

After [the start of] the [full-scale] war, I started thinking more often about how I’d like to have children, thinking about what kind of parent I’d be. It seems that from an early age, so many gay men put an internal block on thinking about it because it’s less traumatic that way.

This year, my grandmother routinely asked me if I had a girlfriend, because “it’s time to start having [kids],” otherwise “when the kids go to college, you’ll be an old man.” The conversation weighed heavily on me. I thought that people who are childless for medical reasons must feel similar emotions when they’re asked: “So, when are you having kids?” Realizing I’m essentially childless in my current circumstances, even though I’m healthy, became really distressing.

[The prospective "LGBT movement" ban] is a hybrid replacement for Article 121 of the Soviet Criminal Code. The idea is that any mention of LGBTQ+ people should disappear from the public sphere, although physical elimination isn’t implied. Although I was expecting something like this, I’m deeply hurt. It’s humiliating and scary. 

Vladislav

St. Petersburg

I’m someone you could say is openly gay: I don’t explicitly tell people about my sexuality, but it’s not a secret to anyone. I wear a woman’s earring on my right ear, I have effeminate mannerisms, and my political views are liberal. I believe it’s extremely important not to hide one’s orientation. The best way to dismantle stigmas is for people to come out. It’s practically impossible to force someone to change their views by forcing the opposite view on them, but it’s possible to be oneself, live openly, and not demand anything from anyone. And that’s when things are normalized and people get used to it.

When I learned about the Justice Ministry’s initiative, I started crying. “Extremist” status will make any openness illegal and will put our community in an even more vulnerable position. In situations like this, it’s more important than ever to come together and support each other. Together, we’ll get through this. But as for me personally, even after the LGBTQ+ community is criminalized, I’m not going to try any harder to hide my orientation. Sure, rainbow symbols might disappear from my social media, but I won’t take my earring out and I won’t act more masculine. I definitely won’t stop going on dates. Fortunately, they’re not reinstating Article 121 of the Criminal Code of the USSR (which banned homosexuality among men). I’m soberly assessing the risks.

Yelena

Rostov-on-Don

I’m an educated, well-read person. I left Russia, and I’m not going back. I could have done some good in my native country, I could have helped people, made their lives better. But no. I miss home, but I no longer have a home there.

People don’t choose their sexual orientation. If that were possible, would a gay person who was unfortunate enough to have been born in the Caucasus really choose to remain gay? I didn’t choose to be a lesbian, just like I didn’t choose my eye color. Persecuting LGBTQ+ people is just as illogical as persecuting redheads. Which might just happen soon: judging by everything going on, Russia hasn’t left the Middle Ages.

I’ve been through a lot of terrible things in my life. How many times have people offered to rape you so you’ll become a “normal woman?” Is that what you want for your children? For people to offer to rape them to make them “normal?” And if it is, do you seriously believe that’s normal?

We’re first on the [Russian authorities’] list. When we’re gone, they’ll come for you. Because an unhappy country always needs an internal enemy, a traitor, a spy, who can be hated and who has to be fought against. After we’re gone, that enemy will be you.

Sasha

Tomsk

It feels like my whole life has been in spite of, not thanks to, circumstances. It’s as if everyone wants you, your thoughts and emotions, to never have existed. They burn you out using every trick in the book. I think they’re well aware of how this affects people, particularly children and teenagers.

But I still want to love and will love. I want to be happy and I will be happy. Despite everything, I exist. We exist.

[topazadine]

We REALLY need to discuss the rabid puritanism of the next generation because it is only going to lead to further stigmatizing and harm to so many people.

We're already seeing HIV rates rise amongst heterosexual men and I have no doubt whatsoever that it is in part because of the consistent association of LGBT = HIV and the idea that having HIV makes you some disgusting monster.

When people are afraid of judgment, they don't seek treatment, and HIV has a very long incubation period. Telling people that they're basically demons for getting an STD leads them to not getting tested, and therefore not getting the support and treatment they need before it turns into AIDS.

Sexually transmitted diseases, just like any other infection, are morally neutral. We would not shame someone for catching the Epstein-Barr virus (colloquially known as the kissing disease) despite that it, too, can lead to serious long-term consequences and often involves intimate contact.

There is nothing disgusting or wrong about having sex. For many people (not all), it is an essential part of the human experience. Just like people make music, they make love; just like people enjoy sports because it helps them feel in tune with their body, so does sex help us feel more alive and embodied.

Do not believe the reactionary conservative mindset that believes sex is sinful and evil, that it makes you somehow "dirty," because that narrative is meant to control you. It's built from years of oppressing women and LGBTQ people. If you are a truly egalitarian, prosocial person, you will recognize that sex-negative attitudes are contrary to everything that modern social movements stand for.

And yes, that includes caring for people who get STDs and refusing to shame them.

abstension-only education has got my generation cooked i swear to god

[sunnys-rewatch-blog]

S2, E14

"Through Many Dangers, Toils, and Snares"

TW: Drug and addiction talk, references at dubious s* xual behavior

One thing they do successfully in the earlier seasons that gets worse over time is establishing characters with layers and dichotomies. Spencer is a brainiac wizz-kid who can do no wrong in the world of academics, including sports. They didn't even go with giving her the stereotypical nerd's aversion to sports, they let her be equally as athletic as booksmart. She's a likeable, well-rounded character, and I feel like that's important when you know that her storyline includes a struggle with drug use. It may not be a perfect arc, but there are elements of it that make it worthwhile to have included, anyways. She shows us that some people end up engaging with addictive substances for reasons we don't even think of, she shows us how desperate it can be sometimes to try to keep up with literally everything when you're in burn-out. The fact that she is a likeable character and you are probably rooting for her to get better is so important. Addiction is so deeply stigmatized that the people who struggle with it are largely dehumanized and defined by others by their condition instead. The showrunners wanted us to see her desire specifically for men her sister dates as a character flaw, and to a point it may be (although, if she had some psychological complex that made her specifically want her sister's boyfriends, it wasn't explored explicitly in cannon), but I refuse to see Melissa's taste in hot trash as Spencer's problem. Getting a crush on an older man isn't a crime, but hooking up with a 14-year-old is.

Jenna SA-ed her step brother and because of that I personally feel conflicted about her character for the entirety of the story. There is something about the house fire causing her blindness that feels like delicious karma, yet I still have sympathy for her and when events come up where her sight may be restored I'm hoping for it to be successful. I want to be repulsed by her and feel like every awful thing that's dished out to her is deserved, but I can't. Her existence, for me, brings up questions about how much punishment is reasonable for atrocities; how do we find the line between "she deserves it" and "we could go on like this forever but it's helping no one"? How much should someone be punished and for how long when they have caused someone unspeakable, lifelong trauma but torturing them will not alleviate the burden of their victim(s)? Can any kind of punishment ever match this kind of a crime- and if we decide that it can't, what options are we left with? Jenna makes me wonder what "should" happen.

And then, of course, there's Alison- who seems to have bullied her friends at least as much as other people but evidently loved them enough to risk her life to show up for them if they were in danger and kill someone to protect them with no hesitation. I have a long history of being bullied, especially for my weight. Alison should do nothing but piss me off, but she's so fascinating she's actually my favorite.

I wonder how the fuck these cops think a bunch of teenage girls got a hold of evidence that should have been in police custody. Did they just not look into that? That should have been a precinct-wide search, starting with the last person to have checked it out.

Awesome, Garret's an asshole.

Lucas didn't handle Hanna's rejection well, but maybe he's coming around. I'm proud of him.

A rocking chair is an odd gift, but it's still thoughtful.

If Spencer wants Toby to forget about her, why is she like...meeting up with him like this?

There are times when the "had you fooled" works really well, and this is one of them.

"I should have told your mother the truth at the police station" what in the everliving FUCK?! This logic is so bad I can't even find the words to explain how bad it is. He thinks he should have told the Montgomeries about his relationship with their daughter after she and her friends were arrested under suspicion of murder.

"We're moving back to Rosewood" - wtf??? This Isabel bitch really said she's gonna move in next door to this man's ex-wife knowing he cheated with her when their engagement was strained. Okay. Does anyone make good choices in this story?

Emily had to find out she was alone the hard way.

I am about as surprised by the things I forgot as I am impressed by what I remember.

[trans-axolotl]

(CW question about intersexism)

What is the most common intersexist thing that you most frequently encounter that you wish perisex people wouldn’t have done that probably is overlooked? I’m trying to learn and I am doing my reasearch obviously but I wanted to ask actual intersex person and I don’t know anyone intersex (or at least that I know of) irl.

oh gosh there’s like so many things i can’t just choose one but like. 

- People making jokes about hermaphrodites or shemales or like jokes that use andorgyny and ambigious genitalia as a punch line

- people saying that there are only two sexes and refusing to listen to or accept that biological sex is a spectrum and a construct 

- Bullying people for the signs of their intersex variations stuff like body hair or breast growth or like any of those things. i get this SO Much irl and people are REALLY cruel and stay stuff stigmatizing intersex traits

- Saying that intersex people can’t be cis or trans (people assuming that intersex people don’t have the ability to self determine gender and that we can never actually be a “real” gender) People do this all the fucking time, saying that we’re not “real” women or men or any gender or saying that being intersex makes us lesser

- making jokes about intersex genitalia like micropenis jokes 

-Obviously stuff like intersex genital mutilation is a huge problem so that’s not really overlooked but im kind of just listing out intersexist stuff now and i dont want to leave that out 

-Intersex medical abuse beyond genital mutilation-we face so much abuse from doctors 

-People saying that intersex people are biologically more likely to be criminals because of that one fucking study (i know this sounds weird but this is a sterotype that i encounter irl ALL the time) 

-Comparing intersex people to aliens, comparing intersex people to animals

- Saying that all intersex people are inherently trans

-Saying that intersex people shouldn’t have children and that it’s good we’re all infertile (we aren’t all infertile. that’s a fucking lie) 

-  Saing that theres such a thing as an AMAB or AFAB body and using AGAB terms to talk about bodies and like childhood experiences

- Saying that intersex is a disorder or a defect, and saying that all intersex people are just male and female. (you’ll see intersex radfems and TERFs saying this all the time and one of the things they claim is that intersex isn’t a third sex which like. that’s technically true in that intersex is a term for a whole collection of variations and biological sex is a spectrum and a construct so intersex isn’t like a coherent third sex but its ABSOLUTELY not true that intersex is just male or female but disordered) 

- People using intersex people as props in arguments to like stick it to transphobes and prove that there’s more than two genders (obviously there are more than two genders that’s not what im bothered by here) but like people only using intersex people when it’s convient and spreading misinfo and talking about us in clinical terms and never actually supporting intersex issues 

-Saying that you “want to be intersex” or “want an intersex body” (i see this in trans circles a lot 

-Fetshizing and weirdly sexualizing intersex bodies (im thinking about stuff like futanari) 

I’m losing focus and there are tons of more intersexist things that happen and this is just like a short list but these are some things I can think of off of the top of my head. other intersex people feel free to add on!

[themoonispurple7]

When it comes to the scandal going on with rappers and rpf/rps in Korea, it is really, really complicated. I understand the desire to villainize khip hop artists, or anyone else, who publically condemns rps or wants to 'censor women'. But there is a lot going on in the background that's feeding the controversy.

There's a bit of a gender war going on in South Korea right now. Of all the developed countries in the world, SK has some of the worst statistics around gender wage gap, sexual harrassment in the workplace, distribution household chores, sexual violence against women, spy cameras, cyber sex crime etc. The birth rate is going down and according to many women it is because they refuse to live the lives of their mothers and are fed up with the societally engrained misogyny that continues to affect their lives. Last year, the horror of the 9th room scandal became international news. (If you or anyone is sensitive, please be cautious if looking up details of these crimes. They are very disturbing and you might read about things that will affect your mental health badly, just speaking from personal experience). Many women and allies demanded that laws be changed to enforce stronger deterrents to sexual crimes. There have also been several high profile prosecutions in recent years involving politicians and celebrities (for example, the burning sun scandal). Before he was elected in 2017, President Moon Jae-In promised to become ' a feminist president'. Efforts have been made to promote female representation in feilds of ministry, education and education. (Plans have also been proposed to incentivize female hiring/advancement in the corporate sector).

With all of this, there has also been a strong backlash against feminism, notably among young men who fear being wrongfully accused of harrassment or beleive that they are paying for crimes perpetrated by older generations of men. Out of a recennt pole of 1000 people, 76% of men in their 20s and 66% of men in their thirties 'oppose' feminism. Compulsory military conscription of men in their 20s adds another element to the battle, with many young men claiming it as a form of gender discrimination and saying that it gives their female competitors an advantage in advancing their careers in SK's ultra tough job market. Anti feminism ideologies are on the rise and if they were to be exploited by, say, a rising politician, things would get very complicated (see, right wing groups in European politics). The poorer and more disenfranchised young men are, the more likely they are to espouse anti feminist beliefs. So with the backlash against rps, I get it. I don't agree with it, but I get where they are coming from. Young men who believe themselves to be the punching bags of feminists and 'female first policy' see rps and are like 🤯🤯🤯.

In the past week, 2 high profile young celebrities have taken their own lives. One was a very controversial rapper who once trained with Big Hit and was in the running to debut with Bangtan. Another rapper was taken to the hospital after very worrying behaviour on a live stream. A lot of rappers and artists in K media are in crisis. Mental illness and addiction are arguably even more stigmatized than in the west. I am not saying 'o woe to them', or 'poor rappers who hate rps', just that they too are human beings and that they too feel backlash from those who disagree with them.

Needless to say, the issues are very complicated and life for millenials and gen z ers in South Korea is not easy. Men and women in their 20s or 30s do not generally feel like 'members of the establishment', professionally, economically, or otherwise. The age heirachy is another factor that may lead to a sense of dispair and disenfranchisement. Maybe trying to understand where people are coming from, even when we profoundly disagree, is the best policy.

Thanks for this anon! I have to say I wasn’t familiar with all of the details. It’s... fascinating, at the very least. Regardless of what these rappers or anyone has done, bullying is never the answer and if the suicides are connected to the case that’s really horrible. 

[ciceroisthefamilycat]

The conclusion to the VA/BL reread with Silver Shadows and Ruby Circle (here’s the post on FH, here’s the post on the VA closers SB and LS)

I think I forgot to emphasize this in the last post: it is bullshit that Adrian still had the Alchemist-paid-for apartment after the events of “TFH” and only becomes more unbelievable that Trey has it still in “SS”... I do not get it

Like with SB and LS, I would make a lot of plot changes in the adaptation.

Silver Shadows

Fun fact: her golden lily on this book cover actually flashes a little gold in the right lighting, and I love that

This one, especially the majority of Sydney’s stuff in the first half or so of the book, was much better than I remembered.

Adrian’s stuff had me far less forgiving. I realize he’s struggling with a fictionalized elevated form of bipolar disorder and he developed addictions in trying to self-medicate over most of his adolescence/early adulthood so far, but as far as his actions go... the part where he blackouts for something like three weeks while in Sydney’s chapters she’s so certain he’s going to rescue her... it really frustrates me. Especially because Richelle writes him as self-flagellating over it, but Sydney immediately reassures him “oh, no, I just got the gas turned off, you couldn’t have really done anything...” as if those three or so days weren’t a big deal with the way the time crunch worked out later... it’s one of those heavy-handed things where I don’t feel like Richelle ever actually makes Adrian own up to his errors in the same way the rest of the main characters have to. Including: Wesley Drozdov and his motley crew show up again, and Adrian plays big hero and outs their dabbling attempt on Sydney, and then with Keith later on thinks to himself “at least I’d taken no for an answer from girls” as if he hadn’t insistently pursued both Rose and Sydney (including the scene at Alicia’s Victorian inn in IS) and been revealed to have dabbled at least once. Like, good that he’s trying to make up for past behavior, but again and again it comes off to me as glib or insincere (in the way it’s written- that he’s some model that is exempt from causing harm). This especially pisses me off in the way he treats his mom for sticking in a loveless marriage to his dad (did Adrian forget about his mom’s affair with Ambrose btw?) for financial security, and even with the hypocrisy being pointed out to him and him begrudgingly admitting it in his mind, or he drags Nina to Sonya’s to try and get her compensated for her work and she’s all googly eyes at him, but his acts of chivalry feel empty. And this extends to Marcus, too, to a lesser extent. Look, I love Carly (all the Sage sisters mean the world to me) and I’m glad that she became an advocate for fellow survivors and I get what Richelle was trying to do in empowering survivors with Carly’s character, but Marcus’ star-struck admiration of her (being made speechless by her strength) felt weird and make me uncomfortable.

On to Sydney’s stuff, holy hell her side of the story is dark. And this conversion therapy nonsense in it is part of why I desperately want canon queer leads in the adaptation (preferably Sydney herself, which would yes mean Adrian and probably Rose... that’s my prerogative). Is that potentially triggering? YES. But Richelle took that step when she laid it on so thick with the allegory. In the meantime, I love the supporting characters that Richelle drew up to be in the center with Sydney. Emma, Duncan, and the rest (the fellow detainees- not Sheridan... she can burn) and I want more of them (seriously, Richelle made some great underexplored groups with the Unpromised, the Keepers, the Merry Men, and then these additional Rebelchemists). There is a weird mention of Sydney having arranged some supply closets on one of the floors, despite whatever scene she did that in seemingly having been cut (there was also a line Rose ascribed to Victor at the end of Last Sacrifice about sending Jill away, so it’s not unheard of). When I first read the book (with a long break before), the degree to which Sydney was using magic in there felt illogical, but rereading directly from the other books, it is more justifiable. I think the Detainment, and Sydney’s struggles there, is some of the best writing Richelle managed in the books, and I don’t have any changes to that part.

But the escape... is actively worse than I remember it. There are glimmers of some great stuff in there- I mentioned in the last post how much I love when Sydney wakes up Hopper and sobs over him, and that still is powerful. But omfg Sydney (and Adrian) hold up the stupid stick so many times in these chapters. To be clear, first-off: Adrian should have gotten blood before they ever went into the desert. In the worst case, he and Eddie (the night before the infiltration) should have gone off to the side and done a feeding (doesn’t have to be Eddie, since I imagine he actually has a bad reaction to them since FB, but it does have to be someone willing). Eddie would have enough time to recover, especially with adequate food. Setting that aside, the actual events of the escape work for me. So I guess it’s more the after. Sydney and Adrian should have driven straight to Las Vegas (if they wanted to stop in the other town and change clothes and switch cars that’s fine with me- I even like the senior citizen tour they were on; p.s. we never learn if the Ivashkinator was shipped back to Palm Springs or anything, which is very surprising to me). Their decision to stay in a hotel overnight, even as much as Sydney did deserve that kind of relaxation, was stupid beyond belief. I would have preferred they got to Vegas, were spotted by Alchemists but made it to the Witching Hour without issue, and then Adrian got them a room, and that was the point where Sydney relaxed and slept. Consolidate some of that. Let Sydney have her luxury bath, and a haircut from Adrian, and other stuff there. Let her mention to him that the first photo she saw of him was taken near there, and hey, did he know Rose had bought a car in Russia that Sydney loved. And when Adrian goes down to make some money to further their escape, that’s when he realizes they’re being watched- there are too many yellow and orange auras. Let them have a less exorbitant wedding than in the book- no ridiculous mermaid dress that Sydney can’t expect to move in and that is ridiculously expensive (she can still have a beautiful stunning white dress). Let her start with the blue sneakers. Let Adrian find a place to get the ring made, if that’s necessary (or just use the dang cufflinks as are for the time being and pin them to the fancy attire). And Jill sends the chopper directly to the Firenze for an “Italian” wedding. They can still have the showdown with Sheridan on the roof- just simplify everything.

And then when they get to Court- let Sydney do more of the talking. Let her (righteously) call out the conditions in the reconditioning- the torture because she showed empathy to Renee who couldn’t even eat on her own, the torture they inflicted on Emma to break her- she didn’t betray her own kind, the Alchemists are repeatedly betraying their own kind, pushing them into the darkness of an empty hole. Oh, and this necklace around her neck, that Sheridan took for her own before Sydney reclaimed it, the morning glories were painted by the man she loves. And she rejects the Alcehmists having any authority on her. She’s a witch of the Stelle coven; she’s Sydney Sage Ivaskhov damnit. And when her dad tells her that if she doesn’t come with them, these will be the last words she ever gets to say to him? She gets to ask him if he knew what happened to Carly, if he let it happen under his own roof because he wanted a son like Keith more than the daughters he was blessed with. I want Sydney arguing her case, having her real communion. I said the same for Rose and Spirit Bound, and Sydney deserves the same here.

p.s. there are a lot of structural parallels between this book and BP/early SB- Sydney’s reeducation being like Rose’s time in Novosibirsk, the Tasarov escape from SB (which Eddie directly mentions) immediately followed up with a Vegas trip

Ruby Circle

Dang it. Look, I no longer hate the idea of Sydney and Adrian raising a kid. Their ending in RC was a lot better built-up (and a lot less bitter for Sydney) than I thought the first time. But the road to get there...

I hate the Jill being kidnapped by Alicia part (and I don’t buy the Warriors working with her). Honestly, just let them deal with Alicia during the events of Fiery Heart (when next to nothing else is going on). Like, Adrian and Sydney come off really badly in my head for “causing” her kidnapping because of a personal vendetta against them, when they came there to protect her in the first place (I realize the actual fault was with Alicia, but the feeling stands). Also the pointless scavenger hunt leading them from Pennsylvania (so conveniently, even though Alicia would have had to go there to set her traps after abducting Jill in the first place?) a month after the fact to whatever castle (then to Michigan) then to Palm Springs and the infiltrating the Warriors mission... it’s all too much (also I refuse to believe Sydney cast those stinging demons... that’s so dangerous I can’t even). Given the introduction of the Stelle in FH, and the unnecessary Malachi stuff, it works better to do that all then anyways. (I still want Jackie involved somehow of course) Instead of sidelining Angeline at Amberwood, she should get to be involved in the hunt for Jill (same as Eddie was for Sydney).

In other parts... Wesley Drozdov was never a good character. I really didn’t need even a mention of him in this book. I also... don’t buy how stigmatized Adrian was for marrying Sydney. I can see it being a scandal, or a laughingstock, the source of snarky asides and derision, but Richelle never built it in VA or the earlier BL books to being as heinous as she then tried to make it (so that Adrian could feel suffocated by Court, just like Sydney). I would have been much more interested in trying to see Sydney blend in, and take a stand in the Moroi world (and seeing her try to ally with nonroyal Moroi, but that also still not going super smoothly because they don’t like being on the same level as a human), and maybe her trying out her magic with the Moroi fighters that Mia and Christian had formed (that beautiful, blessed little moment), and then if it integrating there didn’t work admitting that it just... wasn’t going to. Rather than not even trying.

I understand that Richelle was building up with Adrian’s fears of completely losing it with Nina, but she just got screwed over in both of these books. (We’re acknowledging that it was wrong of her to kiss him in SS when he wasn’t even conscious, and moving on). And then Olive got screwed. And Neil got screwed. I said before that I don’t mind Sydney and Adrian raising a kid. But I mind a whole heck of a lot that Richelle killed (essentially) Nina and Olive both (in bullshit, tragic ways) and then wrote Neil off so that Sydney and Adrian would have to raise a baby. Let Sydney be pregnant. Let her be recovering from the most traumatic event of her life, she and Adrian forewent protection on their hectic honeymoon/escape, she’s going to be a mom to a Dhamphir and wow that’s going to be weird for her... and meanwhile this allows her to get through to Olive. To promise Olive and Neil that Sonya and everyone else will not use their baby as a test tube. Nina can still go up to the brink (maybe she passes it and the spirit trio of Lissa, Sonya, and Adrian have to heal her), there can still be a Strigoi attack at the Refuge in northern Michigan, but ffs cut the crap treatment of those three to pass on a readymade kid to Sydrian. It is a trope that I loathe. I also dislike the “ohmigod” fangirl characterization of Mallory, and while the Rand stuff was better than I remembered (that is to say, he is terrible and everyone acknowledges that and no one makes light of it the way I misremembered), I could do without it (especially since I’d prefer that if they keep Dimitri and Adrian cousins, they addres it much earlier).

Honestly, I would do the following:

the start of the season for RC (which doesn’t match its name??) has Sydney and Adrian locked down at Court and they can’t help like they want to, so they try to adapt and do what they can there, including Adrian trying to get Nina to calm down; their friends from Palm Springs and Marcus team up altogether and get an infiltration squad with the Warriors of Light; Eddie gets to participate; they rescue Jill, and get some of the data on the Alchemist/ Warrior collaboration

the Moroi Court finally gets into action on the age and family laws in earnest; meanwhile, Sydney is helping carve out a niche for the rebel Alchemists to work with the Moroi, especially for Strigoi hunting groups like what Mia and Christian wanted to organize; Jill and Sydney are helping each other emotionally recover from their respective hostage ordeals; Sydney realizes she’s pregnant, which helps Adrian realize in a dream with Olive that she’s pregnant, and finally sees her location marker

it’s “rescuing” Olive time; Neil gets to go too- with his presence, things don’t all go to shit; there is a Strigoi attack in retaliation for the new hunting groups, but heroes persevere and protect the commune; the data on the Alchemist/Warrior collaboration, and the Rebelchemists work with the Moroi, gives the perfect leverage now to get the Rebelchemists their freedom and establish Sydrian’s future together

SO, after rereading Bloodlines

I dislike Sydrian less than I did, though I still think Adrian could be vastly improved if adapted as a woman

the second half gave Eddie more to do, but still not enough emotional focus on him

man Amberwood and its supporting characters disappeared; I get that Adrian isn’t likely to settle in California long term, but can I please get more resolution to those characters, whether it comes from more focus in IS, or a graduation ceremony or something?

Abe also disappeared which is strange

man, Sydrian have a lot of daddy issues. because their dads are both abusive jerks. but why oh why did Jared end up collaborating with the Warriors for tattoos? was it because of anger over ‘losing’ Sydney or just greed? I’m glad that Zoe and Sydney at least started to heal things, and that Zoe is ok where she is

we still never got answers on who restored Lee... Clarence only showed up for deus ex machina money and shelter and I guess blood (did Marcus ever get to speak to him again?)

minor grievance: Richelle described the Warrior recruits as being almost evenly distributed between men and women, with a slide toward men, before two pages later saying there were 30 potential guys and 13 potential ladies, and remembering that, oh, yeah, the Warriors didn’t really use women on the front line; I don’t want any of that subplot adapted I just... editing?

#DoBetterByOliveAndNinaAndNeil2030 (who gets to name their kid Declan?), #LetSydneyUseHerBeautifulBrain

[ninelivesastrology]

And while STIs shouldn't be stigmatized, there's this very weird behavior from people with STI's where the deflection and downplaying of it is so extreme that they feel like they can literally just infect their sexual partners with diseases. Like "everyone has got an STI, it's not a big deal!" Huh???

There's a very clear line between destigmatizing sexually transmitted diseases and masturbating with someone's body without telling them you have a disease. The latter is assault.

And while Kendrick called out Drake for fetishizing Black women, I want to say it is an act of misogynoir to catch STDs and intentionally sleep with a Black woman who doesn't know and would not consent otherwise. People feel like BW are dirty already and pressuring a woman into unprotected sex is not consensual. Drake was all up on those American Black strippers and would not use a condom. When your body is devalued systematically (the irony considering our ancestors were for sale), people really go out the way to prey on you and leave you with something you didn't have before.

Honestly the minute I felt like my abuser was cheating on me and intentionally trying to injure me and tear me, I was like nah. I realized way too late he was sleeping with men and whomever else and when I would come and not ever using condoms with me. I was supposed to be this man's scapegoat if he caught anything. I thought he gave me something, but it was my ED tryna take me out for good. And he refused to get tested, too, he really thought he was gonna send me off by myself.

[And this wasn't even the first time he tried since he fucked my friend who said she had the Clap. Guess what he did? Slept with me, then burst into manipulative tears and it was me who got tested because I didn't know any better.]

Never EVER do that because you could be fine and he could be infected because your bodies are different and the first thing men want to do when you find out you don't have an STI is try to have unprotected sex. So maybe you got lucky only to walk under another ladder. Just because you know your status does not mean you know his. "If she's clean, I'm clean," my ass.

I've seen so many medical staff talk about how they always use protection every time the subject of STIs come up and it's probably because there are people with incurable STIs feeling entitled to people's bodies and they will not disclose. And it's the fact people don't test or test enough. I personally don't think testing yearly is enough. People's way of coping with their disease is to deflect and ignore it as if it never happened, but continue insisting on raw sex.

"No glove, no love" is soooo true. The truth is someone who cares about you would use any kind of protection you wanted with NO complaint, no bullshit. And the sex would be 🔥🔥🔥

There's a new blind item from CDAN about Drake catching STI's like they're Pokemon and someone in the fucking comments said, "He's a colonizer, it's what they do—Spread diseases."

[lastsonlost]

People call me crazy. 

I’m crazy that I set up Uber drivers on dates with other people (Fun Fact: in Paris, I found my Uber driver his girlfriend. They are still together) or that I take my dogs on vacation (just us of course-- no humans allowed). I’ve dated men only to tell them the date of our imminent breakup. I call it expiration dating. I highly recommend it. In my younger years, I moved to New York after watching one episode of Sex and the City. I have been known to go on holiday with perfect strangers.

In 2009, I had a nervous breakdown. Shortly after the breakdown I was diagnosed as bipolar. I got my pills and more or less, it’s been managed since.

I have no qualms about sharing that I’m bipolar. It took me seven years to get to where I am right now. I’m more accepting and I don’t feel shame for having such a condition. I know when an episode is about to hit and I also know how to manage it.

Does being bipolar make me crazy? Nope. It simply means I have a medical condition.

I make it a point to share to any man that I date that I am bipolar, right off the bat. It just seems fair that they know this about me. Yes, it’s risky as they may flee or use it later on to stigmatize me. Believe me, both have happened. I used to be very private about it so these dickheads don’t get a hall pass when they do dickhead things. Assholes can use that as leverage. In the wrong hands, assholes can really make you feel inadequate.  I’m bipolar therefore I’m unstable. So it’s my fault all the time. I’ve fallen for this trick in the past. Now I simply block them from my phone—the digital version of closing the door.

Whether a girl is bipolar or not, it’s easy for a man to call a woman crazy. Consider the double standard. A man is an ardent suitor when he is persistent. When a woman does exactly the same thing, she’s a stalker. Men who sleep around are playboys. Women who sleep around are sluts. Men who refuse to marry are bachelors. Women who refuse to get married are old maids. A man who dares is admirable. A woman who dares is crazy.

So women are kind of screwed. Instead of seeing them as misunderstood, they are instead over-simplified. To the men reading this article, take this as an example. Many of you guys see owning a sports car as your first step to world domination. First big bonus usually goes to a car dealership. You slide into one and to the untrained ass, the distance between the car and the cement is so close you end up tumbling inside instead of expertly sinking in. A man’s first time in a sports car is hardly sexy. You rev up the engine and it starts growling like a Tigress in heat. Everything in the car starts blinking frantically, and maintaining that stone-faced expression that is meant to conceal your inexperience dramatically crumbles.

The scariest thing of all is, of course, the stick. For a driver who has only known automatic shifts, going manual is like learning Chinese in thirty minutes.

Sport cars are not for sissies and neither are “crazy” women.

Now what is crazy? A woman is called crazy when she voices out her opinions. She’s crazy if she doesn’t want to get married. She’s crazy if she dumps a boyfriend and prioritizes her job. A woman is crazy if she’s ambitious. Actually, anything that an independent and intelligent woman does can be labeled crazy.

Sure there are the Gone Girls, but that’s for another article. The other breed of “crazy” women are daring, unconventional and badass. In an irony-deficient country such as ours, their sarcastic humor outdoes their boobs and asses.

These crazy women are probably the most interesting women you will ever meet. Men can be uneasy with a “crazy” aka strong woman’s power. Think of Zelda Fitzgerald. She was willful, and was made to think she was crazy for her unconventional ways. It took a lot but she broke down as her F. Scott Fitzgerald slowly killed himself by drinking. He made Zelda feel strange for her amazing talent, so she wouldn’t shine. Instead of going from party to party she then started going from asylum to asylum.

It will take time for men to perfect the art of appreciating a “crazy” woman. To be able to accept her power, strength and independence is learned. It’s cruel to expect a man to know what to do in a Ferrari on the first try. It’s the same thing with the “crazy” woman.  He will learn as he does with his complicated sports car that it's not the car’s fault that it’s not smooth sailing in the beginning. Loving a woman after all is an art. Practice makes perfect.

------------------

Yeah I spent five hellish, abusive, fucked up, suicidal , sexually assaulting years with a "crazy woman" and it did not build character.

It built distrust, fear, and Trauma that I fight with every single day.

Under no circumstance that my abusive ex girlfriend make me or my life better.

The uphill battle I fight everyday to make myself a better person and heal from my pain is what makes me better.

[all-things-are-nothing-to-me]

Degenerations – Between Pride and Gender Victimhood

I am an anarchist, I am not a feminist because I see feminism as a sectarian and victimist withdrawal, I have never made any gender discrimination although I don’t use gender-friendly linguistic conventions, on the contrary I often use dirty politically incorrect language. I think that the annulment of gender privilege and similar oppression is already contained in the search for anarchy, that is to say in the practice of anti-authoritarian relations, and should be cultivated there. Ah, I forgot, I loathe consciousness-raising in public meetings and I also consider assemblies to be blunt instruments. I understand and also have the will to meet. But I see how all too often the assembly degenerates into sterile self-representation.

You see nowadays you risk having to start off with such a preamble in order to enter the thicket of clichés on gender and feminism, disentangling yourself in the intricate incapacity to relate to the anarchist galaxy, with a range of behaviors going from hyper-emotiveness to the bureaucratic calculation of what stand (and degree of negotiable compromise) to take in a struggle. I don’t think that authoritarian and sexist behavior can be fought by trying to spread new linguistic conventions or by cooking up shreds of mainstream indignant rhetoric (among which #nonunadimeno [enough is enough], the femicide count on TV, pride, red shoes and rainbow ribbons) in an alternative sauce.

Rather these should be recognized as signs of yet another operation of the deconstruction of real meaning and recuperation in act. Convinced that one is opposing them, in actual fact one is adapting to the very behavioral and normative codes conceded by dominion as ways of releasing tension.

It’s nothing new that economic and political power is tending to swallow up and re-digest everything, faster and faster; consider for example the pearls of anti-sexist, anti-racist or whatever it might be neo-conservatism and conformism that are being dispensed by the media every day.

I believe that the first misunderstanding is the inability to put certain kinds of behavior into context, within what should be a wider critique of relations and communication and interaction between individuals in the anti-authoritarian sense, reducing them to the level of questions of gender.

Gender categorization, in LGBTI (XYZ…) style, should be left to those who need to feel themselves a protected category, in pigeonholes more suited to a Linnaean categorization of individuals than free bodies and minds. Instead, we find such pigeonholes in anti-authoritarian milieus, which should already have internalized their refusal.

By the way I’m far from believing that so-called liberated spaces really are such, in fact they often become parking lots for various forms of malaise and instead of enhancing the quality of life and relationships they risk lowering it even more.

For example it’s not possible to see every inability to interact in a meeting as sexism, authoritarian imposition or gender violence: I read in a pamphlet [1] that was around last year stigmatizing the latent violence in relations between comrades ‘the oldest exercises power over the youngest, those with more experience impose themselves on those who have less, whoever is stronger on the not so strong, mirroring the relations of the existent we say we want subvert.’

This is supposed to be a critique of authoritarian attitudes in anti-authoritarian milieus and it would be valid, were it not that it banalises and flattens everything: there is a fundamental difference between imposition of strength and the expression of experience. The inability to express oneself or to act is neither authoritarian nor anti-authoritarian, and can only be solved individually… otherwise we come to the idiocy of praising inability and inaction.

The concept of emotive violence or the violation of emotional integrity is even more ephemeral, because it promotes this analytical junk among anti-authoritarian individuals who should have far sharper critical weapons and practical capacity of intervention. As well as emptying of meaning the inflicted and brutal violence it is being compared to.

How can we claim to engage in an unrelenting struggle against authority and dissertate on revolutionary and liberatory violence if we cannot even react individually to some ‘undesired comment in the street’ (by taking it for what it is, and dealing with it accordingly with the person who spat it out) or keep up an animated discussion during a meeting without having recourse to the shield of violated sensitivity? Why do we find ourselves reading the disarming and obvious idiocy that advises making love with a woman in order to avoid an unwanted abortion?  [2] Why codify, even in the field of gender, only for ��female gangs”, like conquest, self-defence from aggression and harassment? Isn’t this a problem common to all genders among liberated beings?

Why should we revisit the most outworn products in the wardrobe of 1970s feminism, such as separatist meetings… maybe calling them workshops (a really ugly term that combines work and shop, borrowed from business conventions and unworthy of free discussions)?

I read the spectre of the same reductive and banalising mechanism in another recent publication, the Italian edition of the Rote Zora claims [3], i.e. the intention to sensitize only a female audience about a group of women who carried out armed struggle in the 1980s and 90s in Germany, insisting on the choice of gender, of very great interest on some feminist topics, as a privileged discriminating factor for taking them out of oblivion… given that one doesn’t want it ‘to belong to official history. It is written by men’ [4]… What?!? Is it not that official historiography tends to not talk about them because they were angry, not angry feminists? Just as it doesn’t deal with – or distorts – the history, actions and writings of so many other angry men and women? The partial vision is not that of Rote Zora who experimented their own path of individual and collective struggle and liberation in the context of wider anti-imperialist and anti-capitalistic action, but of those who try to make a flag out of it in order to give more credibility and specific weight to their own theorizing, to then reduce themselves to looking for ‘paths of self-defence’.

Why entrench oneself in a ‘feminist and lesbian’ discourse [5]? Why yet another protective cage, rather than develop the beauty and infinity of more advanced ideas of the critique of domination (not only gender), put forward and tested?

‘Sisterhood’ has always seemed to me to be a form of allusive alienation of transversal political alliances between oppressed and oppressors, between ‘inter-classist’ as it has become fashionable to say again… adverse parties. I also happened to see a booklet [6] recently containing an Italian feminist’s interviews of some female veterans of the Spanish revolution in 1936, aimed at finding a questionable ‘sisterhood’ between women anarchists engaged on the front line (and in the background with Mujeres Libres), the POUM and Stalinist women.

It was quite significant that almost centenarian anarchist revolutionary women were far more lucid and open in their critique about the limitations of feminism than their interviewer imbued with 1970s’ clichés was: in the extreme calm of a life lived to the full, they were able to explain simply the equal relations between male and female comrades, and how they managed to ridicule and neutralize the machismos that emerged among the most retrograde and stupid of their comrades. In short the practices and theoretical contribution of these women are far more advanced along the path of liberation of the individual and the negation of authoritarian dynamics than those of feminists who glean from their experiences, defending simulacra of struggle instead of the struggle itself. The need for auto-da-fé, the ‘deconstruction of one’s male privileges’, the search for separate places for discussions, self-awareness and self-analysis in public seem a little too much like signs of these times of over-exposition and woolly thinking, parading ‘struggles’ by category and interior struggles, to end up not struggling at all.

Anna,

Women’s prison of Rebibbia, Italy

October 2018

[1] Violenza di genere in ambienti antiautoritari ed in spazi liberati [Gender violence in antiauthoritarian milieus and in liberated spaces], Italian edition translated from Spanish in 2017[2] Critica all’aborto [Critique of abortion], Jauria – Trans-feminist publication for animal liberation, issue 1, Summer/Autumn 2015[3] Rote Zora – guerriglia urbana femminista [Rote Zora – Feminist urban guerrilla], Autoproduzione Femminista, 2018[4] From the introduction to the same book[5] Which the Rote Zora women themselves didn’t think relevant. From a 1984 interview with Rote Zora: ‘Some of us have children, many others don’t. Some are lesbian, others love men’, page 51, ibidem[6] Donne contro [Women against], Isabella Lorusso, ed. CSA editrice, 2013

[birdsy-purplefishes]

I have MANY thoughts and feelings about Midsommar.

Okay I saw Midsommar last night and it was an experience. So this post is probably going to be long and rambling and it is definitely 100% for-sure going to contain some spoilers. I’m gonna put a whole lot of it behind a Read More.

First, though, I want to say that while I thought this film was great it is definitely one of the most disturbing things I have ever seen. I went into it knowing almost nothing--and honestly I wouldn’t have been prepared even if I had read spoilers--and that was the ideal way to see it for me but there are many triggering things and some very problematic things in this film. I’m gonna try to be vague as possible but you might not not to watch this one if anything from the following list is something you can’t handle. That said: I am very easily disturbed by a lot of things and I found that this film was so bizarre that I never really felt like I couldn’t finish it. It’s... kind of weirdly selective about which gruesome stuff it shows and what it doesn’t. The most terrifying things to me were implied things and I didn’t realize them until after it had ended. Somehow... miraculously... this film didn’t come across as gore/torture-p*rn to me. So Trigger Warning / Content Warnings for this movie: Violence, blood, gore, horrible suffering. Sex, nudity. Mental illness and stigmatization/perpetuation of harmful myths about mentally ill people. Suicide. Ableism. Racism. A rape scene that I think most people didn’t even realize was a rape scene because it’s bizarre and left somewhat ambiguous. Emetophobia triggers. Body horror. A whole lot of drugs. Squicky grossout stuff. Emotional, psychological, and religious abuse. 

There’s probably other stuff I forgot. Basically everything horrible is in this movie. It was definitely worth it but it’s a hard watch.

Okay, now for spoilery stuff.

The backstory shown in the first few minutes is incredibly disturbing. Dani’s bipolar sister murders their parents and kills herself. It’s graphic. It’s disturbing. It definitely portrays suicide in a negative light, which is pretty much good, but: can horror movies stop perpetuating myths about mentally ill people?! This stuff is damaging! It makes mentally ill people out to be monsters and then ignorant people treat them worse. It makes mentally ill people feel like there isn’t any hope for them! This part sucked a lot. The only interpretation of this that isn’t awful is the fan theory that there are clues in the background that suggest that the cult may have actually framed Dani’s sister but that’s kind of a stretch. None of the other foreshadowing in the film is as subtle as the supposed hints that the cult fabricated the whole thing so I doubt it.

The foreshadowing is actually super obvious. It’s the typical horror film where the characters have no idea what’s going on & you’re like “DUDE GET OUT OF THERE!” the whole time. People on the subreddit are pointing out all kinds of foreshadowing and even the tapestry at the beginning shows you who all of the characters are and like 90% of the story.

Dani’s boyfriend, Christian, sucks. His friends suck. There’s a lot of macho bullshit and they’re just cold and dismissive. And the boyfriend’s a manipulative little leech. You hate him so much! I found myself hoping that she’d kill them all except maybe the cute friendly Swede. Basically the entire movie he’s gaslighting and dismissing her and his friends talk shit about her constantly. It’s the typical “oh, women are irrational and over sensitive” macho bullshit. Like to the extent that all of them know about the murder-suicide of her entire family but none of them try to fucking shield her from seeing the suicide ritual. Not even the guys who know damn well what it is going into it!

The fact that they’re all anthropology majors and they go into it with a sense of cold detachment and an insistence on cultural relativism (or utter obliviousness) and it makes them total assholes wasn’t lost on me and I’m glad that someone went into detail: https://slate.com/culture/2019/07/midsommar-graduate-students-villains-ari-aster.html 

The bros say something about him dumping her and finding somebody who “actually likes sex” and there’s a lot of interpretations to that, none of which are less than horrible. Like does he try to pressure her into doing stuff she doesn’t want to? Probably! Like whether she has emotional or physical sexual dysfunction isn’t discussed and that’s kind of brilliant because even if she does have issues it’s not her fault at all and the dudes are g a r b a g e for even suggesting it.

The cute friendly Swedish dude (Pelle) who was the only one to be kind to Dani at all was actually the worst manipulator of all! He’s totally luring her in! He’s love-bombing and manipulating her! He literally “draws” her in. He does some forced-teaming shared-trauma bullshit. I gotta say though: I fell for it! I wanted her to dump the guy for him! I’m almost surprised that she didn’t fall for it. I think it’s more due to the fact that she’s traumatized and grieving than anything.

The most disturbing thing about the guy, though, is that I can’t decide if he does all of this because he’s evil or because he’s genuinely a true believer and believes with all his heart that he’s doing good things. That will haunt me forever tbh. Just... always watch out for guys who want to “save” you. They are the scariest fucking abusers.

The whole cult is love-bombing her, actually. The whole film is like Cult Tactics 101. They find a vulnerable young woman who’s lost everything. She doesn’t feel a sense of love and belonging anywhere. She has no support system unless you count her garbage basically-sociopathic-but-aloof boyfriend who really doesn’t count. Pelle hand-selected her because she’s the ideal cult brainwashing candidate. He’s seen firsthand just how much shit she takes from Christian and how she’s constantly falling for his gaslighting and tolerating him mistreating her. I was actually kind of disturbed at how many women I saw online reacting to the cult saying it was empowering or matriarchal. It’s not at all! The first elder we see leading things is female but the ones handling the book and enforcing the rules are men. I can only recall two women elders who do much of anything and they’re both just prominent parts of ceremonies. They’re announcers/performers. They’re definitely complicit but the men are behind the scenes controlling it. And look at the sex ritual! There’s no real emphasis on female pleasure and it’s all being a good little brood mare. It’s a performance. And small babies are kept away from their mothers to be raised communally. They send the mothers away from their babies! Even the May Queen role sucks if you think about it for even a second. The whole “we’re a family” thing is just creepy as hell. There’s even a lot of foreshadowing to it that I missed, like the guy who greets her shaking the mens’ hands but saying “welcome home” to her. Said guy also calls his traditional garb “girly” when Dani compliments it, btw! And of course the division of labor is patriarchal. The clothing is patriarchal too.

The mental health ableism stuff is bad but there’s ableism based on physical disability as well. Arguably it’s supposed to condemn the cult for fetishizing disabled people and promoting incest to deliberately create disabled people but... it still comes across as “look at this deformed kid” and it’s fucked up.

I can’t tell if the movie is trying to show us that the cult is racist or if the movie itself is racist. They kill off the three non-white outsiders pretty quick. Was that classic horror movie “the black guy dies first” bullshit or was that supposed to be like “look, these seemingly peaceful and loving people are xenophobic and racist and there’s a reason why all of them are super duper white despite bringing in outsiders”. Like I came out of the film definitely convinced that it’s no coincidence that the blue-eyed blonde chick gets singled out as special by these people.

It made me really uncomfortable to realize that the sex ritual is technically a rape scene. We get clues that Christian goes into it voluntarily to some extent, sure. When he knows that girl (and she does look like a young girl!) is trying to seduce him we don’t really see his reaction but he doesn’t seem to refuse outright. He seems ambivalent until he's offered the drugs but then he hears that they’ll make him lose his inhibitions, looks at the girl, and gulps the liquid. He saw it as an excuse to get away with cheating and he took it. But that doesn’t change the fact that he’s drugged when he actually agrees to the sex. He’s tripping the whole time. He’s being pressured and prodded and even literally physically manipulated. He’s out of it. The girl seems kind of out of it too. It’s really fucked up. But like it’s so weird and you’re so mad at him for everything shitty he’s done to Dani that you’re just like what?! But when you think about the fact that he’s drugged and you see the way he’s horrified after he realizes what he’s done... it’s horrific. He was violated.

I like that we see just how viscerally traumatic it is to be cheated on. Dani vomits, collapses and wails. And our sympathies are with her.

The cultists imitation of their members’ suffering is actually deeply disturbing and a huge aspect of the love-bombing thing, especially for Dani. She goes from being barely held by her expressionless piece-of-shit boyfriend while she wails to having a whole bunch of women replicate and act out her suffering. They do this too at the botched suicide and the final scene. They even kind of do it when she fails to eat the fish. It kind of looks communal and empathetic but it’s a feigned empathy. It’s another way that people in the cult lose their own personal identities. Nothing is yours there! Not even your suffering is yours.

To be honest... I went to see this film ‘cause a lot of the reactions to it were women gleefully enjoying seeing a shitty boyfriend suffer a horrible fate. I’m always down for misandry and cinematography! BUT... this was just excessive. The boyfriend is a total bastard. He did kinda need to die tbh. But he basically gets tortured to death. It’s made pretty explicitly clear that it’s horrific. They make no effort to mercy kill him like they did to the elderly guy whose jump failed to kill him. And like... the actor even gets it. The guy’s a scumbag and he doesn’t give a shit about anyone but himself. He even backstabs Chidi From The Good Place! But what happened to him is just awful.

The director and the lead actor actually disagree about the ending! Ari Aster says that Dani knows what she’s doing when she condemns Christian to die. Florence Pugh says she’s out of it.

I say it doesn’t actually matter whether Dani chose to kill Christian or not or what her motive was. Honestly it might have been a mercy killing given the state that he was in! Like maybe it was revenge for her and maybe the cult did it to make her feel empowered but it sucks being forced to choose who lives and dies. It sucks that some creepy cultist basically stole her man. It’s the whole “a pedestal is the same as a cage” thing for sure.

Last thing I can think of for now: I’m very surprised and more than a little distressed at all the people--especially women--who see this as a happy ending for Dani. Sure, it’s kind of a dark fairy tale revenge fantasy. But she’s objectively worse off than she is at the beginning of the film! She’s brainwashed and trapped! Like... I forgot where I read this now but basically Aster says that she goes from with one gaslighter to being with an entire cult of gaslighters! What do you think is gonna happen to her in the future?! She’s gonna have to live with her dead boyfriend’s baby that he had with some rando chick if that fertility ritual worked! She’s gonna have to live in a shitty commune. She’s gonna have PTSD 5ever from everything that happened. It’s honestly a tragic and horrible ending.

I’m... still processing this. I know I’m gonna end up adding to this. Feel free to chime in and discuss it with me! This movie was just Intense. BONUS LINKSPAM: Good Takes And Shit!

https://www.cinemablend.com/news/2474518/jordan-peele-says-midsommar-has-the-most-atrociously-disturbing-imagery-hes-ever-seen

https://themuse.jezebel.com/boy-problems-whos-got-em-midsommar-does-1835878652

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/alisonwillmore/midsommar-ari-aster-florence-pugh

https://www.vulture.com/2019/07/the-end-of-midsommar-ari-asters-last-minutes-explained.html

https://www.vulture.com/2019/07/the-end-of-midsommar-ari-asters-last-minutes-explained.html

https://www.npr.org/2019/07/03/738422258/midsommar-shines-a-solstice-nightmare-unfolds-in-broad-daylight

EDIT: Also!!! This film?! Somehow is a comedy! It’s funny as fuck and I’m definitely going to hell for laughing!

[queermediastudies]

I Know Why The Birdcage Sings

In 1996, at the height of Robin Williams’ career, the actor started in The Birdcage with Nathan Lane, Dianne Wiest, Gene Hackman and Hank Azaria. For being made in 1996, the film is seemingly progressive. You have a gay couple, Armand and Albert, who own a night club called The Birdcage in South Beach, Florida, with a son, Val, that is about to get married to a woman, Barbara. Barbara’s parents are right wing conservatives, with her father being a senator and after a scandal with one of his colleagues, they decide to go and meet the parents. When Armand (Robin Williams) and Val (Dan Futterman) try to get Albert (Nathan Lane) to leave, he refuses, and they come to the conclusion to dress him up in drag. In the end, everything works out, and the wedding goes on. This is not where my story ends though. Even though the film has its good moments, there are times of glaring stereotypes that plague all the characters, especially the gay characters.

Let’s start by talking about the casting choices. Robin Williams, a terrific character actor, is cast as the “straight acting” gay man who is married to a flamboyant partner, played by Nathan Lane. Of these two, only Lane is gay, which leads to the question of why there weren’t two gay actors portraying the couple. While researching the backstory of the movie, I found out that Robin Williams originally wanted to play the more flamboyant character, however, he decided to switch roles to give himself more of a challenge. This fits with the “best actor” idea that Dr. Martin (2018) presents in his research paper. He says, “In the process, when skill is centered, the ‘best actor’ discourse often results in heterosexual actors playing gay roles.” (p. 287). This idea that Williams was the best actor at the time is kind of easy to believe, after all he is Robin Williams. One argument that I think of in this situation is looking at the timing of the movie. It was the 1990s, Clinton passed Defense of Marriage Act and Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, two very strong pieces of legislation that stuck with America for about 2 decades. In the 90s you could name few movie and television stars that were out, still had careers, and still in good graces with the public. This was before Ellen’s dog, before Doogie Howser, M.D. became Doogie Howser, gay M.D. and before Gaga invented gay people with Born This Way (before some of y’all say “Gaga didn’t invent gay people” and get upset, it’s a joke). 

Gay actors weren’t really around at the time of The Birdcage and maybe that’s why there was no casting of two gay men. Hell, Nathan Lane wasn’t even out at the time of his role, so imagine how hard it would be to find two out, gay actors.Williams’ character, however, is not the worst part in terms of acting or portrayal in the movie. In second place, Nathan Lane’s character as a stereotypical gay man is pretty egregious. The drag performer turned mother is a hard pill to swallow, especially in this day and age and after taking this class. He is the over the top, flamboyant gay man most queer scholars have come to disdain. However, his cultural interpretation of the character is important to the idea of queer cinema. It’s almost as if you want him to be over the top so someone who would walk in mid movie could look at him and go, “he’s gay and this is a gay movie.” If he was the same type of person as William’s character, you would almost forget that they were in a committed relationship. In their article about queer media, Yvonne Andersson (2002) says, “While the essentialist suggests identity is a rather fixed, unchanging and authentic set of characteristics which unify a group of people- based on nature/biology and/or  their common past- the nonessentialist focus on a difference both inside and between those groups and suggest that identity is something that changes over time…What the non-essentialist definition also points at is that identity is not just about identifiable characteristic, something we can see, count and use as an objective tool for grouping people. Identity and its constituents is very much about meaning.” (p. 4) Lane’s character is an identifiable member of the LGBT community that was very much unseen in popular culture in the 1990s, no matter how stereotypical he may have seemed. As Cavalcante (2017) points out, “At the same time, other participants welcomed the opportunity to perform as cultural interpreters. They perceived the incursion to speak as less of a burden and more of an opportunity to take part in a larger social conversation- a conversation from which they often felt excluded by virtue of having stigmatized and disenfranchised identity.” (p. 11)

  What we can’t overlook about the movie, however, is the portrayals of queer people of color, especially Hank Azaria’s character Agador Spartacus, the Guatemalan housekeeper. Not only is Azaria not of Latin decent, but his stereotypical portrayal of a Latino/a housekeeper is almost unbearable. I would compare it to Mickey Rooney’s character in Breakfast at Tiffany’s. However, this is a discussion for a class about race and stereotypes as well as white washing in films, rather than an in-depth exploration of the characters sexual identity. One could argue that both Lane and Azaria’s characters are the same stereotype that has been harmful to the queer community for years: the idea that every gay man is flamboyant, wants to be a drag queen, dramatic and over the top. These ideas have been fought against in recent years, but we are still feeling the ripple effect from years past.

Both Lane and Williams command the stage when they take part in the movie, and because of this, the movie stands out as a good piece of queer cinema. Ahead of its time for its portrayal of gay couples, The Birdcage is a must watch for anyone that wants a good laugh, doesn’t want to over analyze the movie, or just wants something on in the background while they browse social media. Though it does have its problems, the movie holds up to the test of time in a way that few queer movies have. There is a sense of timelessness of the story that resonates with so many people, that it is hard for one to absolutely hate the movie for anything other than the character traits and stereotypes that I have mentioned. If you have not seen the movie, I would suggest watching it one night when you have nothing to do and be open minded of the way characters are portrayed and acted. Afterall, we are all family and The Birdcage really does sing.

 Andersson, Y. (2002). Queer media? Or; What has queer theory to do with media studies. 23 Conference and General Assembly, IAMCR. 1-10. Accessed via Canvas module page: https://ucdenver.instructure.com/courses/392242/files/7295429?module_item_id=1541735

 Cavalcante, A. (2017). Breaking into transgender life: Transgender audiences’ experiences with “first of its kind” visibility. Communication, Culture & Critique. 1-18. Accessed via Canvas module page: https://ucdenver.instructure.com/courses/392242/files/7295434?module_item_id=1541747

 Martin Jr., A. (2018). The queer business of casting gay characters on U.S. television. Communication Culture and Critique. 11. 282-297. Accessed via Canvas module: https://ucdenver.instructure.com/courses/392242/files/7299898?module_item_id=1543720

[permian-tropos]

why aces belong in the lgbt+ community a Not comprehensive post tm 

god I hate this discourse so much. it’s not a fun rousing kind of pissed off like arguing about star wars or w/e. I feel ill having to say this and I feel ill thinking people will want to inject their own ideologies into what I’m about to say, about my personal experience of identity

look. I’m neither cisgender nor heterosexual. I’ve had pre-puberty anticipatory body dysphoria, I’ve had tons of gender presentation dysphoria, I’ve had gender euphoria from people telling me they don’t see me as a woman. I felt isolated in a lot of ways when I was younger simply because I didn’t know how to engage with people in their gendered world I didn’t connect with. and obviously I’m not heterosexual because I’m ace but I’ve had strong aesthetic attractions to women and also found that I’m probably somewhat demisexual and I don’t want to get into that too much more (personal) but basically to the extent that I can be romantic or sexual it is not in a straight way.

on these grounds I would hope I would belong in the lgbt+ community

but the thing is -- neither my gender nor my multiple-gender-interest expressed themselves until I’d come to terms with how my aroasexuality shaped them both. because that always came first, and it was always really vivid in my mind. it was so vivid that I invented the word asexual to describe it quite independently of anyone else when I was a pre-teen. asexuality was always what made me different, what made me feel like I was not part of cishet society. I felt like I wasn’t fully a woman for many reasons, but I especially knew that I didn’t want to be a gender that people could be attracted to! that I wasn’t a gender that people could or should be attracted to, in the way that people can be attracted to men or women (because I had only learned the binary at that time). and so, also, my feelings towards other people were not governed by the interplay of recognizing people’s genders and sensing your own sexuality that allo people experience. 

asexuality is a huge range of experiences but a lot of those experiences are highly unique. and not in a ~fun~ way. maturing into asexuality can mean not knowing if every interaction or social connection you’ve had is sexual. again, I don’t want to get into certain things (you don’t have a right to all my personal anecdotes ok?), but it can mean feeling like any strong attachment you hold to something is sexual or romantic, and before I identified as ace, when I was around 8-9, I ended up doing a few things that I really regret because I couldn’t distinguish that emotional difference (they’re not that bad, just kinda odd neurodivergent child behaviors, don’t worry about me, but I still have these memories uneasily rattling around my brain)

what I’m getting at is that asexuality is an extremely queer experience and if you’re allo then it’s not your queer experience and you can’t measure it by your own standards, and it shouldn’t be offensive to suggest that. and it can’t be separated into its own community. I am not cisgender -- but my gender comes out of my asexuality and so if the queer community wants my queer gender, it will have to take my asexuality with it. I am not hetero-attracted -- but my non-het experience comes out of my asexuality. if I end up in a relationship with a girl, even one with sex as an element, it would still be an asexual same-gender relationship and my desire to be with them would be an asexual desire.

the ace community cannot be separate from the lgbt+ community. I cannot separately be lgbt+ and ace. my gender identity and non-het attractions clearly belong in lgbt+ spaces. but they are asexual. what do you expect me to do in your lgbt+ space, to express my gender and attraction, without my asexuality? you can’t pull these two things apart. 

so as a non-cis non-het ace, you are literally expelling my queerness from your community by making asexuality some separate thing.

the question of whether asexuals are oppressed or not is honestly BS because a) I can’t speak for the many asexuals who have in fact been stigmatized for their identity but they can damn well speak for themselves and they do but people refuse to listen and b) we’re trying to make a world where no one’s going to be oppressed. even in a world where no queer people are stigmatized or mistreated, there are still going to be experiences that are queer because they’re different. and asexuality is always going to feel different because of how formative sexuality is to individuals and society! we’re always going to be something else. why doesn’t that belong under the lgbt+ umbrella?

saying you don’t thing aces should be in the community focused on marginalized genders and sexualities that you’re in, but some other community, basically means you think you shouldn’t have to hear any of the complex ideas about gender and sexuality that we could offer. you think you deserve the right to to avoid our voices in broad conversations about these topics

allo folks? can I have your attention please? 

stop acting like you can personally comprehend the experience of being aspec and freely categorize it. and if you’re angry that we’re talking about how not wanting sex is valid (but also a complex and multifaceted way of being), because your identity has been stigmatized as hypersexual, I just have to say, is making asexuality a queer thing going to make all the other sexualities more sexual? like if you’re in proximity to us and consider yourself in a community with us, that suddenly makes your sexuality look too sexual to the cishets? 

do you think that we’re going to be treated as the good queers? is that it? I do genuinely empathize and understand this but it’s also a fucking petty and frankly selfish fear. you don’t get to kick us out because you’re afraid of what other people will think and do simply because we exist. and it also plays into the bullshit about how Oppressors(TM) and Oppressed(TM) are always clearly delineated along an axis of oppression -- allosexual people face tons of problems due to compulsory allosexuality in society! one of the longstanding problems throughout human history is people delineating the right way to be allosexual. people making the experience of having sexual attraction (not necessarily having sex) the locus of judgement on a person’s character because it’s seen as this universal part of being human, some unifying thing that all human psyches can be judged on, which lets societies justify extremely harsh judgments. looking at you, Religions Of That Book That Classifies Sexual Desire As Defining Humanity And Humanity’s Original Sin Establishing Their Capacity For Good And Evil (or just the adherents of those religions that use that interpretation, which is and always has been a lot of people)

anyway where the fuck do you get off citing how people stigmatize the lgbt+ community as hypersexual when you believe that sexuality should be mandatory for participation in the lgbt+ community but optional if you’re going to go anything else 

[humanwithherpes-blog]

Herpes Whoredom

January 6th, 2018.

Candidness is key.

I had sex in the university’s science lab. Actually, the place where they genetically engineer goats to excrete spider silk. Like, these little guys produce milk that has copious amounts of one of the strongest, most indestructible materials made by nature. So I guess you can say I’m intricately woven into the larger scientific community. 

Back to the sex. I was having sex in the science lab. Exciting as it sounds, I actually realized I had left my tampon in after a couple of minutes. Extracting it wasn’t too difficult, but it left me extremely sore. 

The following day, I continued feeling a burning itch down there, which was unsurprising, and I assumed I had gotten a UTI, or yeaster infection, or at the worst, maybe even TSS (which I actually know nothing about), but the pain got more intense as the weekend went on, and I noticed a couple of bumps in my genital region. I remember lying in the bathtub with Epsom salt, and my roommate came into the bathroom to pee. I even had her take a look, and she commented that it might just be bacterial vaginosis, something she had gotten a while back. “Yeah, that’s kinda what it looks like. Just go to urgent care and they’ll give you antibiotics. You should be fine. It’s probably because of the whole tampon sex thing.” 

“Thank you, wise roommate! I indeed shall go to the doctor first thing in the morning.”

January 8th, 2018.

The nurse led me to the examination room, and I declined to sit in the chair; instead, I squatted on the floor because that was the only position in which I felt semi-comfortable. She took my pulse and got my weight and asked me the normal questions, and I told her about the Tampon Sex and how I had self-diagnosed with Bacterial Vaginosis. 

She was honestly kind of bitchy. She was making this kind of sour expression on her face the whole time and rolled her eyes at me when I was telling her that I was in pain. 

 Maybe she was having a bad day, or just like, has RBF, but she rubbed me the wrong way, and when the male doctor had me put my feet in the stirrups so he could peer into my aching vagina, she stood in the corner, with the stupid pinched look on her stupid bitchy face, all I could think was Does this bitch have to be in here right now, and the doctor, right away, in a low voice, said, “Hmm, yeah, that looks like it’s herpes.”

He wouldn’t make eye contact with me, and that stupid nurse stared at me with her nose wrinkled up and did a little eyebrow lift before she left the room. 

I wanted to punch her.

And then I was like, okay, so what now? And he was like, “’kay, here are some meds, good luck, and bye!” 

The Next 10 Days

were the worst of my life. 

This was the first week of the semester. I tried going to class one day, but I had to walk so slowly and gingerly that I got there 30 minutes late, and then I had to pee, and I ended up just crying in pain on the bathroom floor until a friend could come pick me up. 

What started out as little bumps turned into fiery little sores and even open lesions that extended all the way into my cervix and around my urethra. Yeah, the acid in my piss burned the hell out of me every time I had to pee. Eventually, I figured out this routine where every time I would go, I would get on all fours in the bath tub and kind of splash water on myself when the pee would come out to relieve some of the pain faster, screaming in pain the whole time, and then I would rinse out the bathtub and just lie in there for like half an hour. 

I didn’t want to drink fluids because I didn’t want to pee. I couldn’t walk, I couldn’t leave the house, I couldn’t sit down. Everything was painful. 

And I was like, holy shit holy shit, no one is every going to want to have sex with me again. I’m a modern-day leper. I have this nasty little virus inhabiting my body and it will never go away. It’s invaded me. Like, it thinks that it can just use me as its home and hurt me and just basically fuck up my life.

Most of my friends were supportive. My mom sounded shocked and appalled, but she was really nice, and my best friends brought me over soup and candy and books almost every day. I did have one friend, however, when I disclosed to him about my STI, that looked me in the eye and told me, “I will never see you the same.” 

I contacted the men I’d been with in the last six months, encouraging them to get tested. Many ran into the same problem: the clinics were unwilling or reluctant to test them since they had no symptoms. (Even though 85% of HSV-positive individuals DON’T HAVE SYMPTOMS.) And can herpes be spread asymptomatically? YES IT CAN. I got my herpes from a person with no symptoms. 

Stuck at home, with nothing else to do, I did a lot of research. I have to give a shout-out to Ella Dawson, whose herpes blog provided a lifeboat to my mental and emotional health. 

I dedicated my time to several online support groups, and I educated myself on everything there is to know about HSV2.

And then life went back to “normal”

The Valtrex eventually did its thing and the pain of the herpes went away, but I was left to deal with the negative social stigma that accompanies it as I dove back into the dating world. 

There was this Tinder dude who was trying to have sexy talk with me, and this is how the conversation turned: 

Okay dude, you don’t want herpes but A. who even said that we were going to have sex and B. don’t be an asshole.

And while we are talking about douchebags, here is another unrelated, non-herpes conversation I had with a tinder dude: 

Jesus, like I DON’T WANT TO SEND YOU NUDES AND IF I DO I WILL BUT BE HAPPY WITH WHAT YOU GET.

Sidenote: I have met many lovely, kind, respectful gentlemen on tinder and bumble. 

I started seeing this guy, we’ll call him Marty, for a couple of weeks, and he seemed to handle the herpes thing pretty well. In fact, it didn’t bother him at all.  We were going to have sex, but I could tell he was uncomfortable. He started acting weird, and finally admitted that he was afraid of contracting HSV2 through my blood. If he couldn’t handle it, that’s fine, but I can’t handle being around someone who can’t handle it, so I told him goodbye. 

Yes, I faced the cold sting of rejection, as certain men decided I wasn’t worth their time, which is fine, because ultimately, those type of people aren’t worth my time either. I’m honestly a very fit, sexy, funny, intelligent, kind, successful 25-year old woman and anyone that can’t see past my herpes can go bury their head deeper in the sand where it belongs. 

 I came to some realizations:

1. I can’t break the stigma if I stigmatize myself.  As an HSV2-positive female, I have 3 choices: add to the shaming of herpes by putting myself down, hide from the shaming of herpes by keeping it a secret, or fight the shaming by telling people my story. In sex ed they show you gross, scary pictures of genital infections, but where was the part about those parts belonging to a human being whose identity is bigger than an STD? What about her likes and dislikes, her community of people she loves, and in return loves her? What about her career, what she does to pay her bills, her vices, her habits, her passions? 

We aren’t just looking at an STD, we are looking at part of a multi-faceted individual. 

I am an individual. I love coconut water and I hate Chili’s southwestern eggrolls. I like karaoke and game night, and I like sitting in the sun while I draw or read a book. I’m a waitress, a student, a transcriber, a musician, an artist, a lover, a sister, a friend. 

I am HSV2-positive, but it does not change my value. 

2. The bad reputation society has given herpes comes down to sex shaming. 

Though it is a popular Christian belief that sex should be saved for the sanctity of marriage, or used only for reproductive purposes, it is not a consequence or punishment of “promiscuity.”  Having herpes does not make one gross or undesirable. Any individual with one, none, or multiple partners, does not “deserve” to get an STD. Sex is a part of life, therefore, STD’s are a part of life, and it is nothing to snub or look down upon. 

3. STD-screening and Sex Education needs some serious reform, folks.

You are not a “dirty, used shoe that has been worn by the entire football team” if you’ve had sex. That was the video I was shown in my sex-ed class, and it made me feel like shit about myself for a long time. 

Maybe instead of pushing for abstinence, we can be realistic and talk about safety and condoms and create an UNDERSTANDING of sex, rather than FEAR.

If you don’t have symptoms, get tested. If they refuse, get tested somewhere else. 

Don’t let your doctor be a dick-wad. I went to get a Valtrex refill the other week, and he told me, “If you got herpes at the beginning of the year, and you’re already sexually active again, maybe you should reconsider how much sex you’re having.” 

Maybe you should reconsider your right to comment on my sex life, mister. I reported him. Don’t let them say shit like that. It’s not okay.

But you know what is okay? Having herpes! 

I have herpes, and it’s actually pretty okay. 

(me rn, typing this in the library) 

[scripturehomosexuality]

The “Gay” Media Blind Spot: HIV Cases Increasing Worldwide

I’m writing this as a followup to the 2016 STD Bump in the United States. As I’ve just found out, HIV rises aren’t just happening in the U.S. They’re happening all over the world. And the “gay” media is acting like it doesn’t exist.

While reading through the international press in early June, I came across a certain item from Chile. The story originally came from Agence France-Presse (AFP), though I personally encountered it through a Caribbean newspaper. Other news outlets in Europe, Africa, East Asia and Southeast Asia also carried the story. From what I can see, U.S. outlets haven’t carried it at all.

For some strange reason, AFP junked the story just a week after publishing it. If you try to look for it, you won’t find it there. Thus, I had to go back to that same Caribbean newspaper to analyze it, where you can read the story here.

The article details alarming developments in the HIV situation in Chile. According to the article, almost 6,000 new cases of HIV were diagnosed in 2017. The majority of the new victims are young people aged 15 to 29. Meanwhile, according to a TeleSUR story from last month, 7,000 new cases have been diagnosed so far this year.

The same story says that at present, the total number of Chilean HIV victims is 100,000. That’s a 64% increase from levels in 2016, when according to the UN, the total number infected was 61,000. So either the number of new cases were undercounted, or the 2016 UN estimate was very conservative.

Those same UN statistics show that, unsurprisingly, the majority of new and existing cases are “gay” men and other men who have sex with men (MSM). However, the AFP story shows a new and frightening twist - that women are increasingly getting infected too. This is because, as the article describes, “many of [the young people are] blurring the lines between gay and heterosexual relations.”

Now, that line validates what this blog has said about same-sex activity in the developing world. As shown in this post, same-sex activity is already a widespread and frequent phenomena throughout that world. It’s been that way for hundreds and thousands of years. It’s just that their traditional model historically rejected anal play.  They rejected it because anal was considered a gender-bending act, since the penetrated male was “acting like a woman”. Plus, because those regions still define “sex” in terms of penetration, such activity wasn’t even considered full “sex”.

Since it’s common and non-penetrative, the traditional model isn’t considered “homosexuality” in those regions. In fact, as far as I know, it isn’t identified by any particular name. Instead, “homosexuality” refers to the anal-centric LGBT sex model, and particularly to male-male anal sex. As such, the traditional model isn’t incompatible with having sex with women.

So because of the traditional same-sex model, the developing world has been effectively bisexual for some time. Evidently, this has been the case in Chile too. The difference is that certain young men, seduced by LGBT advocacy in their country, are increasingly including anal in their male-male interactions. They then spread it to their girlfriends and other women through sex with them. That’s what the articles and data strongly suggest. Otherwise, STDs would have always been a problem.

Chile isn’t alone. Brazil has been been having its own troubles. 2016 is the latest year for which we have statistics, so we’ll refer to those. According to the New York Times, there were 48,000 new HIV cases during 2016. There were already 830,000 Brazilians infected with HIV during that year. which means the total jumped by 5%. Keep in mind that we still don’t have statistics for 2017.

As with Chile, the largest rise occurred among the young, between ages 15 to 24. Men are disproportionately affected, which suggests that “gays” and MSM have the majority of cases. However, women are also getting affected, as they also have sex with those men. This is because, since it’s part of the developing world, dynamics in Brazil closely resemble those in Chile.

The increases aren’t limited to Latin America and the Caribbean. Even as deaths from AIDS are decreasing overall, HIV infections are rising throughout the world. CNN reported that over the past decade, there have been increases in 74 countries. The most pronounced ones happened in Central and South America, South Asia, the Middle East, and Eastern Europe. Though the increase is partially attributable to drug use (particularly in Eastern Europe), the majority of new cases still occur among “gays” and MSM.

However, I’ve yet to touch the most outrageous part - the deafening silence of the “gay” media on this story.

I’m not saying this lightly. I’ve tried to find “gay” media output on this, but it’s nowhere in sight. There’s nothing on Chile in the Advocate, Queerty, Gay Star News, Out Magazine, or Pink News. These are some of the biggest “gay” outlets in the world, yet there’s nothing on this massacre. Nor is there anything on Brazil on those websites, except for a small item in Gay Star News that superficially covers it.

As for the situation worldwide, you also find virtually nothing. The exception is a video from the Advocate, which cherry picks information detailed in the CNN report. The video completely ignores the bad news, which is the continuing and escalating rise in HIV infection. Instead, it focuses only on positive developments, making the stupefying claim that “we're winning the worldwide fight against AIDS”.

After doing all this research, I had to take a break. That headline would be so funny if it wasn’t so utterly fraudulent.

We’re winning the worldwide fight against AIDS? Really? In what universe? If we were winning, rates of HIV infection wouldn’t be increasing.

Meanwhile, these outlets diligently report bias attacks that happen around the world, including in the countries mentioned. To be clear, I’m not saying that they shouldn’t do that. In this aspect, they are doing their job. However, they ignore possible factors spurring these attacks. If you believed these outlets, you’d think that these attacks are driven by blind illogical hatred for all same-sex activity.

Let me make a modest suggestion. Is it possible that those bias attacks are driven by these disease statistics, at least in part? Especially when these diseases were previously unknown, and mainly appeared when LGBT advocacy arrived in their countries? Especially when anal was previously unknown in those countries? Especially when scientific evidence shows that anal, the practice they want to increase, is mainly responsible for HIV transmission during sex?

As I did research for this post, I noticed something. More often than not, countries reporting HIV increases also reported increases in bias attacks. That’s especially the case in Brazil, where murders of LGBT-identified people reached an all-time high last year. The same has occurred in Chile, where 2017 was called the “year of rage” against “gays”. That has blatantly been the case in Russia, which has also registered a sharp uptick in HIV cases in recent years.

I’m not justifying random violence on LGBT-identified people. Nor am I encouraging blind persecution of those who have HIV. My point is, when analyzing why “gays” are attacked in those countries, we must consider these statistics. If we don’t, we might be ignoring a huge factor. Think about it. You see HIV increasing in your country. With your own eyes, you see the horror that it can cause. At the same time, you see “gay” groups openly and endlessly advocating anal sex. Available evidence shows that anal is highly effective at spreading HIV.

With all those factors combined, isn’t it logical that someday, grief over HIV may turn into anger against “gays”? Especially when behavior spreading it isn’t native to those countries? To be clear, I definitely don’t support attacks on random “gay” people. However, I also can’t blame those residents for being so upset, even if the anger is expressed in extremely harmful ways.

I also don’t think that victims of HIV should be stigmatized. They need help, not stigma. They indeed support, medication, and love. At the same time, we should be doing everything possible to end its transmission, so that others won’t be harmed. This must include changes in behavior. That’s what socially responsible movements do - analyze if its own actions are worsening the issue. If the “gay” movement refuses to consider that kind of change, they are part of the problem.

To not look so complacent, “gay” advocacy groups push the absurd demand for more condoms. The truth is, it really doesn’t matter whether condoms are used en masse or not. Condoms can tear, and because the anus is rougher than the vagina, condoms tear much more easily inside the anus. In other words, condoms give a false sense of security.

That’s not all. Because of that false sense of security, those “gay” men might do anal more than they would otherwise. This results in a paradox: by using condoms, “gay” men feel free to increasingly do something that can make them tear. This in turn increases the risk of HIV transmission. So in sum, mass condom use doesn’t decrease HIV risk, but actually increases it.

There’s only one way to surely decrease HIV transmission - stop doing behavior that spreads it. As in, “gays” must stop having anal sex (and other forms of anal play) altogether. It’s simply too risky.

There’s one more factor to consider, which wasn’t mentioned in the last STD post. As mentioned before, the new infections usually occur in young people. They weren’t born when this epidemic started in 1981. Many of them also weren’t born with the virus, but acquired it later in life. This means that on a fundamental level, HIV activism has failed miserably. Instead of staying with one generation, the virus is now being spread to a new one. HIV has become the “gift” that keeps on giving.

This guarantees that we will be dealing with this for another 40 years, at least. This means that, contrary to the Advocate headline, we’re not winning the war on AIDS. We’re not even close. Even as you read this, a new generation is getting infected, and the “gay” media is dead silent.

Does the “gay” movement not realize that through their willful ignorance, they are chaining our young people for life? Do they not see that this is morally reprehensible? Do they not comprehend how vile and nauseating this is?

Worst of all, outlets discouraging anal are struggling to spread their message. This website, the Man2Man Alliance, and the g0ys have all been censored and hindered on various platforms. I have endured many personal attacks while trying to advertise this blog on Reddit. At one point, some rogue employee(s) at Tumblr vigorously tried to shut this website down. The Man2Man Alliance has suffered similar attacks. In many cases, the “gay” movement plays a big role in that censorship and sabotage.

Yet, the “gay” movement can spread their message much more easily, even as it increases disease transmission. And they have the nerve to label us as homophobic!

Thus, I will repeat the same message I said in the past article: if you want healthy advice on same-sex activity, don’t listen to the “gay” media or the “gay” leadership. They are morally bankrupt, and apparently love anal sex more than life itself.

Instead, listen to those who don’t insist on doing anal, such as the g0y movement and the Man2Man Alliance. They have the intellectual integrity to explain how anal increases STD risk. They show that hierarchies of risk do exist, and that certain modes of contact carry low STD risk. You’ll be much more able to avoid STDs by using their advice.

If you’re not “gay” yourself, don’t wantonly attack those who identify as LGBT. That will only drive them further into the arms of the “gay” leadership. Also, don’t lump all same-sex activity in the same category as anal. That will only feed into their narrative, that they are the only ones championing all same-sex activity.

Instead, show them alternatives to the anal sex model. The g0ys and Man2Man Alliance will help considerably with that. I’m sure they will appreciate that their same-sex attraction isn’t as problematic as they think.

If you want to try it yourself, this site will be more than willing to help you.

Thus, I urge you to read further here, to explore another way to think about same-sex activity. I urge you to read “The ‘Straight’-’Gay’ Dichotomy: How It Works”, to fully understand how that system functions. I also urge any who read this to go to “For Straight People (though not exclusively)”, which will point to philosophies and forms of same-sex behavior that don’t hinge on demonstratively false concepts. Also read the page “History of the Concept of Homosexuality”, to see how this concept evolved into its modern day meaning. Don’t be afraid of talking about what you learn to others, because that’s the only way progress will be made.

Other approaches to same-sex activity are possible. The “gay” movement doesn’t have a monopoly on it, and it won’t if you don’t allow it.