#this post brought to you by a man on the internet saying women don't experience loneliness or emotional repression

[glittercorvid]

hate listening to a man talk about women and knowing that what would fix him is nonsexual intimate relationships with women while also knowing every woman who has the kind of patience and emotional capacity to slowly train a man to see her as a full human being deserves better than to have to

[piosplayhouse]

Holy absolute fuck for some reason this random ass post with pretty much zero relevant tags struck complete discourse shitfest rabbit hole GOLD so I'm taking you all on the wild journey I just experienced.

So this person who I've never seen in my life but seems to run a surface-level innocuous watercolor art blog commented this under this post:

I thought whatever, it is extremely contentious ongoing science that's still awaiting new developments and research results to this day. The papers do indeed address the fact that no solid research on the topic of whether or not it's antibiotics or birth conditions (or, likely, a mixture of both and many other factors as we know how life is) and even cite a variety of contradicting experiments to add depth to the research, but it's true that there is no One Truth in emerging science. I replied this:

rocksmorelikefood also replied to them with an extremely neutral and polite response informing them that the linked papers were not experimental, but reviews of other experimental data, meaning the authors themselves would not be in charge of the experiment design or control. They also reasserted that (hopefully) no one's having intestinal gestation babies there's wombs involved even if they connect to the ass

They replied with this extremely normal (/s to the maximum) response:

I was willing to give them the benefit of the doubt at first but these replies definitely made me like. Huh. extremely weird hill to die on to claim these peer-reviewed scientific papers actually published in proven scientific journals are "publishing for the purpose of publishing".

I've known a lot of STEM people in my life and I have to say I don't think any of them have ever said "Fuck yes!! My favorite part of science, writing a 20 page long report to be submitted to a board of reviewers who will rigorously henpeck the work I've put blood, sweat, and tears into!" or such. Extremely suspicious anti-science stance for perhaps one of the most niche subjects in the world.

The further assertion that a fantasy mpreg uterus MUST share tissues with the intestine but they CAN'T because PEOPLE WOULD DIE was also so ??? You are the only person saying intestinal gestation I promise you no one else was thinking about that at all. Nobody, especially not the literal scientific papers here, brought that up except for you.

And then I realized. Are they making some sort of insane extrapolation that mpreg is a gateway to like. intestinal gestation surgery??? Do they seriously think scientific research into CIS WOMEN'S birthing methods will somehow lead to ?? A uterus made out of intestines??? What kind of American Mary shit is going on here

So then I did a one second tumblr search and, ladies and gentlethems, enjoy the insane rabbithole that is the controversial legacy of havekat / rad-bad-and-dangerous-to-know / have-a-hygge, a terfy artist with accusations of everything under the sun from being a radfem to scamming (it seems this also led to an event of terf infighting in which radfems began trying to get her kicked out of communities for scamming people? idk terfs hate her, normal people hate her, the world's against her basically and she's clearly learned nothing) to RACE-FAKING. Truly an insane tag to scroll through

Anyway, in summary, no matter how bad you feel about yourself sometimes always remember that you're a billion more times more dignified than this random ass pathetic terf with every controversy under the sun feeling so threatened by the mere notion of a fantasy man getting pregnant and giving birth out of his rectum for presumable kink reasons that you inadvertently make a whole new omegaverse biology concept while trying to reject genuine scientific research into, and I cannot stress this enough, CIS WOMEN and their circumstances around giving birth (you know, the thing that terfs love) on some low virality Tumblr post made by a niche fandom blog. Truly admirable.

when the biology assumes that the person would give birth via the asshole it breaks immersion for me and i stop reading simply because it makes NO sense for a species to give birth via a method that would expose their newborns to the germs in the asshole? (via the mpreg poll)

Um. I'm really really sorry to have to break this to you but there's actually a very heated and still ongoing scientific debate over whether or not children born via c-section have a higher risk of childhood immune-related disease due to lack of exposure to birth canal/adjacent fecal matter germ not populating their gut microflora

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4464665/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5050524/

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0091674908009408

[sakebytheriver]

I'm gonna be real with you all for a second and say the reaction this website and the internet in general had to the news that the number of men under 30 are not having sex has tripled in the last few years was absolutely disgusting and I am disappointed in you all for being so dumb as to not realize there is more to this than just one man isn't getting some pussy

Like I get that it was a Vaush tweet that brought this to your attention and Vaush is well, Vaush and we could talk for hours about him but he's not the focus rn. And also he was fucking right. This is a problem. Like I don't think it's a bad thing to say that there is a problem with the fact that men under 30 are now having issues connecting with people and making meaningful relationships with women. Like this is not a "men think they're entitle to sex" situation this is a "there's something going on with how young men are being socialized by our society" situation. If this was an individual case and not like a well documented problem that is affecting an entire subsection of the male gender then it would be different, but we can't just chock it up to an indiduval incel sitting alone in his basement playing COD 24/7 eating his hot cheetos and drinking his mountain dew who hasn't touched a stick of deodorant in years or whatever other stereotype you had in your brain when you first saw that statistic, because it is not. This is just another part of the isolating and lonliness of patriarchy that says if a man cannot get a woman it is his fault, that there is something inherently wrong with him, something in him is bad and wrong and broken and it is all his fault and not the societal pressure put upon them to be this idealized version of what patriarchy thinks a "real man" is.

A leftist streamer, Shark, posted the most milquetoast little tweet about how he has personally experienced this isolationg experience of finding that dating and connecting to other people in this day and age was really difficult and so he's found it easier to just give into the isolation and not connect to people anymore. And every single comment under his tweet was telling him he was a loser who should just kill himself and stop complaining about being a bitchless virgin

Like bro.

If you saw someone lamenting their own lonliness and your instinct is to tell them to just kill themself well, sorry comrade but I think you might be the problem and I don't think you belong on the left

The isolation and the lonliness and the fact that young men under 30 are not able to connect with people and have sex/intimacy with others is all a combination of the isolation of late stage capitalism mixed with the compounding factor of patriarchy telling men to stuff their feelings down and not to be emotional and that a "real man" deals with his problems in silence on his own or he sticks a gun in his mouth and blows out his brain before he can make his lonliness anyone else's problem. And for all of you to just dogpile that clearly alarming statistic that speaks to more than just the amount of sex these men are having and say that all of the men who reported not having sex were just a bunch of entitled whiny little bitchboys who think they have a right to have sex with women's bodies as if that was even the point of that statistic at all is absolutely abhorrent behavior and I think you need to take a step away from the computer for a while and contemplate why that was your first initial reaction to the news and ask yourself if you might be contributing to the problem rather than helping with solutions. Once again the internet needs to learn reading comprehension and what statistics actually mean to the greater scope of society before jumping to conclusions about the worst most bad faith rebuttals possible

Stop letting dumb manhating TERFs and MRA alpha males pollute your politics to the point where you can't have sympathy for the other 50% of the world's population smh

[atozfic]

Love when people reveal themselves as being so obviously online and insulated in leftist/progressive circles that they seem to forget that the rest of the world is not nearly as accepting or supportive of not conforming of gender roles as these spaces are. Like when did you say the reason anyone likes femsub or the reason it's popular at all is because they're young or don't know anything about sex? To me it's pretty clear you were talking about it as a larger trend and why it's so much popular than everything else overall. And to be completely frank, what is the reason femsub is so much popular than anything else OVERALL (not why any individual person likes it or it has any kind of appeal), if not gender roles? Are women just naturally more submissive than men (not saying you think this)? Because I have seen people say this, yes even so-called "feminist" men and women, that my preferences are unnatural because men evolved to be sexually dominant and women evolved to be sexually submissive, and that I'll never be in a happy or satisfying relationship unless I make myself more submissive and change my preferences because men just naturally don't like dominant women. I'm pretty sure you would not like if I took those hurtful and negative experiences and said any woman is submissive is that way is because they're misogynists who just think it's all women's nature to be submissive. And I'm pretty sure of this cause of the way that you freaked out when you even THOUGHT somebody might be implying that when they weren't. So why the fuck is it okay for you to say dom women are the way that we are because we think we're "enlightened" or more strong or better than everyone else and only like what we like because we want to be ~not like other girls~ for attention because of your negative experiences? And I like how they only talk about submissive or vanilla women getting shamed, so true bestie, dom type women, sexually or otherwise, never get shamed for their preferences. Nope, never ever. It's not like people always joke about women "wearing the pants" in the relationship and how it means she doesn't respect her partner. It's not like assertive or aggressive women are called a "bitch" but when men act that way it's sexy. It's not like religion teaches women they have to submit to men or no man will ever love them or they'll never be happy. It's not like people say that women that want to be dominant are "acting like men" or "want to be men" and therefore are unattractive, as if dominance is inherently masculine thing. It's not like a lot of men genuinely believe that all/most women want to be dominated in bed and so they don't even have to ask, they just do things to you and try to dominate you without your permission or consent or without ever having talked about that kind of thing before. Nope, we must have it sooo easy because we've got grrrrllll powerrr on our side, all women love us cause they think we're such cool independent and empowered women, and all men love us cause they think we're just so cool and not like the other girls. Like honestly, I don't assume to know what they experience of submissive women is like or that they must have it so easy because they're preferences are in line with gender roles, because I'm not one and i know they don't always have it easy because I've heard of women in the irl bdsm community being treated badly by shitty men who think it's okay to abuse them or do whatever they want to them because they're sub identified (or sometimes just because they're women). So why is it okay for you to assume what are experience is like?

I'm not involved in any real life bdsm community because corona and I'm anti-social bitch but I do like to lurk on online communities for fun (something I should probably stop doing cause it's not good for my mento health luv lmao). This whole thing reminds me of these weird ass screeds I sometimes come across by straight male doms on reddit where they go on and on trying to reconcile their desires with feminist politics either because a) they're genuinely a misogynistic piece of shit and people call them out on it or b) they're genuinely progressive/humanist men who have some difficulty reconciling their desire to be dominant with feminism for whatever reason. And so they do this weird thing where they project these worries and insecurities outwards, and manufacture a situation where anyone who criticises gender roles at all is against them personally, and it would be so much easier if they were just a female dom instead, everyone would apparently have no problem at all with them then, cause grrrrllll powerrr.

I don't like to engage in armchair psychology but the follow-up ask from that anon made it pretty clear to me that they have some insecurities around reconciling their preference for submission with feminism because of some negative and hurtful experiences, and so they deal with it by projecting it onto anyone that suggests that gender roles might be why SOME people gravitate more towards it and why it's so much more popular than everything else. I'm sorry that those people said those things to you anon, they're wrong, but a) most of those people tend to be against all bdsm in general, not just femsub and b) you need to work out those insecurities by yourself. You can't lash out at anyone who tries to talk about the relationship between societal norms and preferences at all, it's not helpful or productive.

Also how do they know those people unfollowed you for that reason? Is that an assumption or a verifiable fact? I'm not necessarily saying they didn't either, I'm not a mind reader, but like, some people are just sexist and think women are naturally submissive, sexually or otherwise. I've met them before.

to quote my therapist: that was alot to unpack.

i'm gonna give a longer reply under the cut but i just want to state here i'm not posting this ask to offend or hurt, or even "one-up", the original anon who sent that ask regarding sub!females. i have no issue with them and, again, think they're in every right to send their original ask. i'm posting it because i do think this anon made some very interesting points and brought up alot of worthy of being discussed topics.

let me also put a disclaimer here that i am not a genius nor someone very well-versed in gender politics, i'm simply a twat on the internet with a negative mindset.

"Love when people reveal themselves as being so obviously online and insulated in leftist/progressive circles that they seem to forget that the rest of the world is not nearly as accepting or supportive of not conforming of gender roles as these spaces are."

this. omfg, t h i s. i see this so much, especially in my younger cousins/relatives who are just now beginning to develop their own political opinions. let's take the conversation away from dom/sub for one second and just focus on gender in society. one of the clearest examples of gender affecting the way someone is treated/viewed is something i've experienced first-hand: i was misdiagnosed four times before i was correctly given my diagnosis for ASD, because most of the studies regarding it center around boys and, therefore, most women go undiagnosed. in fact, for years it was believed only men could have it which is why there has been such a surgence in the past few years of adult women being diagnosed with autism. i remember hitting high school, experiencing academic burn-out (thanks to everything moving too fast + my classmates catching up to me intellectually) and having my teachers treat me like i was an imbecile, or i was lazy, rather than just someone with neurodivergence. (this isn't me implying tjat men with ASD have it easy or that society accepts them anymore than women, it's only easier for them to get diagnosed.)

"it's not like people always joke about women wearing the pants."

this applies to both the shaming of dom women and sub men. the amount of men who get treated like they're "losing their manhood" for letting a women(or anyone else) dom them is ridiculous.

honestly, I think at the end of the day (and to close up this whole issue-that's-not-really-an-issue), we're unfortunately always going to live in a world where people have opinions against either side of the dom/sub spectrum, or the whole bdsm community in general. the best thing we can do is try lessen the internal conflict, especially between dom and sub women. we gotta stop treating each other like the enemy when all we really are is people with a differing preference. at the end of the day, what someone chooses to do in their bedroom is no one else's business (unless it harms anyone) and we need to take away the importance we seem to put on it. we're on a floating rock in space, who cares if becky likes to peg her boyfriend on a sunday morning or if stacy likes to be tied up on a thursday evening?

also, anon, i like the way you worded this whole ask. despite it being long, it was easy to read and you made some great points. sorry my reply isn't more exciting, i just in general agree with most of what you've said.

[tyrantisterror]

Ok, so, not gonna lie, the one-two punch of you referring to me in the third person in a direct response to my post (which you tagged me in no less) and then saying I'm not well-versed in 50's monster movies really pushed my buttons - just an immediate activation of my internet fight response, teeth bared, hackles raised, well and truly pissed me off. But before I could respond I had to go pick up a pizza, which gave me time to simmer a bit, and while I'm still honestly very irritated, I'm hopefully calm enough to try to give a rational response in good faith rather than, like, incensed fury.

I'll cop that my two paragraph blog post about my initial reaction to a TV show made a generalization about 50's monster movies that does not hold universally true for every single one of them. That's the big flaw in making generalizations - they fail to account for anything and only really work in casual discussions about a topic.

I do not, however, agree with your generalization that 50's monster movies were mostly progressive in regards to gender. From my experience, I'm fairly certain that for every one 50's monster film where the female lead gets to prove her mettle against the sexist expectations of men from start to finish, there are just as many where whatever moxie she showed at the start withers away by the third act and she's reduced to just a shrieking damsel who's incapable of dealing with the monster problem while the men around her save her - IF she ever showed any moxie at all.

Now, since you brought multiple examples and cited sources into this, I'm aware that I can't really prove my view in the court of public opinion without doing the same, and man I work for a living, I am tired, it's Saturday and I just wanted to ramble a bit about monsters without having to do work, and I'm just - I'm not going to do that! I'm not writing a works cited for a tumblr post, you can't make me.

I can think of one counter-example off the top of my head because I watched it last week: Tarantula, where the male lead goes on a long rant about female scientists to the female lead, which she mostly just sits and takes. When she gets to the lab to do science, she proves capable of all the reading and writing part of science well enough, but once shit hits the fan, she's mostly just there to be menaced by the monster and the abrasive scientist trying to fix his fuckup, and does not do as a male scientist character would do in this story, i.e. take charge and figure out how to kill the monster. She is incapable of proving equal to her male peers.

But that's just one example, and I guess, by the rules of academic debate, yeah you win, all the women of 50's monster films are feminist icons and the narratives were 100% in their court all the time, and I don't do enough research on monster movies. But I don't know man, I don't think that generalization holds much more water than mine did.

Really enjoying Monarch: Legacy of Monsters so far. The flashback scenes in particular are very much my cup of tea, for reasons anyone who's read ATOM could easily guess. There's a thing that happens a lot inf 50's monster movies where a lady scientist is introduced and the male character initially can't believe she's the scientist they're looking for because she's a woman, and in the old movies it's played as a "Wow, times are crazy because broads can have jobs now, how fucking weird is that, they better get husbands and become wives soon!" thing, with the men's disbelief being justified and the women often being incapable.

And, like, I mocked this pretty relentlessly in my two kaiju books, but Monarch: Legacy of Monsters takes a jab at it too. Monarch has the same setup as the old movies, but in execution it's clearly the guy making presumptions who's weird by the narrative's standards, and presented as an embarrassing moment for him, where his prejudice made him look like a jackass, and the lady scientist goes on to be INCREDIBLY competent and capable. It's nice, I like it.

[m1serere-n0bis]

Anyways. I don't care what the rest of you all have been doing during this but I have been trying to listen better and pray more.

For those of you who don't think that's "enough"... Sorry but I don't owe public opinion shit. The only person I owe an explanation to is God. I don't owe anyone information on what I'm doing in private. I don't owe anyone information on what I am/am not supporting financially or otherwise. If your personal opinion is that I'm not making adequate use of my voice or platform then that's rough buddy, but my voice is not the one that needs to be heard right now and also what platform? As a society hyperfocused on social media ESPECIALLY NOW DURING THIS PANDEMIC we have to come to terms that we all have lives outside of it and we don't "owe" each other ANY information about that in spite of what our culture tells us. Like if this is what "community-based policing" means, I can already tell you I hate it and it's oppressive.

For those of you who think this is a political power play, I would say those concerns are valid but there IS a REAL problem that will still be there when all the political pandering and posturing is done. And we need to fix it. Part of the reason I haven't been hyping what everyone has been telling me to hype in the name of activism is pretty much this:

Do I think it honestly matters which political party is in charge for changes to happen? No, because I do not trust the SAME GOVERNMENT BACKING THE POLICE to take the money THAT IS STILL TECHNICALLY IN THEIR POSSESSION and funnel it into the communities that need it in any way that will actually address the racism inherent in the system. HOWEVER, that doesn't stop me from listening to what my brothers and sisters in Christ are telling me are their experiences not just in a society that is supposed to have progressed past racism but in the BODY OF CHRIST itself. Because it's there, everyone. Yes, it's not overt. Yes, not everyone is actively engaging in it but if we are truly One Body then we owe it to each other to make reparations for sins that aren't ours. It's what we've been doing for the child abuse scandals, is it not? The majority of us were not involved but do we not still carry the burden of that sin simply because we're Catholic, because one part of the One Body committed this massive hurt?

So anyway. The goal of this post is not to make anyone feel bad and it is not an invitation for people to pile on me because I haven't vocally supported x, y, z. This is an invitation to listen and to pray... which should always be the first step, EVEN WHEN THERE IS AN IMMEDIATE NEED FOR ACTION. (Maybe ESPECIALLY when there's an immediate need for action.) And holy shit are we not good at that or what? 😂

1) Fr. Mike Schmitz' homily this week was an invitation for us to listen to God and let Him tell us who He is because only by doing that can we see the image and likeness of God in each other. We've lost that in our wishy-washy prayer lives that inevitably end up with us trying to force God into an earthly construction in which He doesn't belong. We try to tell God who He is because the world is too noisy for us to hear Him tell us about Himself. And that inevitably trickles down into us trying to force each other into boxes before recognizing the human dignity instilled by God in all of us. The internet feeds into that by making us faceless virtual entities, thus making it that much more difficult to recognize our humanity. I can read faceless stats for days but if I don't have ANY CONTEXTUAL IDEA where those numbers are coming from, they're empty. They're easily manipulated into whatever whoever is selling me them wants me to think of them if I don't have someone LIVING THOSE STATISTICS giving me context. Right now the media wants us to feed on the controversy surrounding BLM movement without telling us that these communities have been MARCHING IN THEIR COMMUNITIES FOR YEARS AGAINST THE VIOLENCE THEY INFLICT ON THEMSELVES and it is the same media blackout as any March for Life. The media doesn't care unless they have drama they can use to stoke more division and that's the tea.

2) Fr. Josh Johnson is on fire right now, everyone. Like him and Chika Anyanwu are two voices I wasn't listening to before that I'm thankful to be hearing now. If you're wondering how God can be good even in the midst of chaos, turmoil, and pain, this is it. If you're struggling to separate the Black Lives Matter Organization from the heart of the issue, this is how God is doing that. The Church needs to hear these voices. They have real experiences to share. They are part of the Body of Christ, and they are really hurting through these thousands of small cuts.

I would recommend listening to the Jeff Cavins Show episode Distance Amplifies Difference where he has a conversation with Fr. Josh. They both have tremendously unique WORDLY perspectives to bring to the table on the issue (Jeff Cavins is a white man but has children who are black and they live in Minnesota and are literally witnessing the heart of this first hand in the trenches, and Fr. Josh is the son of a black former chief of police) but ultimately discuss how we as a Church can work towards fixing it.

Fr. Josh and Fr. Mike's dialogue on Ascension Presents is also really top notch. I still have to finish watching it, though. 😅

I can't believe I wasn't following Chika before because as another single Catholic woman, I feel like I've found a sister in Christ experiencing the same ups and downs of Catholic singlehood (her Instagram Highlight was like HILARIOUS and also a truth 😂). Her family's small business got looted during the rioting but I believe they've since been able to shut down their Go Fund Me since people gave them enough support to get it back up and running. Anyways, I'm glad this amplification of black voices brought me to hers.

3) Fransican Friars of the Renewal Fr. Agostino and Fr. Pierre Toussaint discuss their hopes for the movement from their perspective as people of color and as servants of one of the poorest neighborhoods in NYC, the South Bronx. Their dynamic is great because Fr. Agostino is like a Gryffindor on fire and Fr. PT is like a soft-spoken, phlegmetic Ravenclaw. I understand that energy. 😂 (I'm also a phlegmetic Ravenclaw) One of my takeaways was Fr. Agostino's opinion that we can't just posture and leave it up to the government or orgs with ulterior political motives to make things right because he's seen firsthand how well THAT goes. However, all that means is that we as people of God have to dig in and do the work our own dang selves. They're also hopeful that this discussion of the police force being built on a foundation of racism will eventually lead to the discussion of Planned Parenthood being built on the same. They said that 42% of the pregnancies of the predominantly black and Latino population in the South Bronx end in abortion. 42%!!!!!!!!!!! If that is not a wake-up call that systemic racism is alive and well and we are abjectly failing women of color as a society Idk what is. But also their analogy that society is a MESS of a dilapidated house and we have to pick ONE place to start and stick with it if we really want to fix it up is also the truth.

4) Did y'all know about Our Lady of Kibohe? This is a Vatican-approved Marian apparition that appeared to three teenaged girls in Rwanda a little more than a decade before the genocide (which she warned them about). There is no one in Creation demons and Satan hate more than Our Lady, and there's no better weapon against them than the rosary. There has been a call from our brothers and sisters to rend our hearts and even if you don't see, think, or believe there is still racism within the Church, will you not pray for Mary and St. Michael to help continue keeping it that way, then?

Our Lady of Kibohe encouraged us to take up the practice of praying the Seven Sorrows Rosary. I tried it for the first time last week and I have to say, even with my super basic limited knowledge of black history in the United States, it was not hard to see how their suffering could easily be united to the sufferings of Christ and Our Lady.

I guess my conclusion is this: I have my own misgivings about blindly supporting any ol' cause that happens to be trending on whatever. The Black Lives Matter ORGANIZATION has a manifesto touting things that are contrary to the Catechism for SURE, but when my brothers and sisters in the Church are telling me they are in pain RIGHT NOW and saying, "Hey, listen... They're right about some things... These are the things and we've experienced it IN the Church..." then they deserve to be heard. We owe it to them to listen because they are a part of us. We need to expose these sins to the light instead of denying they exist or claiming to be past it. We ALSO need to be charitable to those in different parts of their journey. Is it FAIR to bear the burden of others' sins and make reparations for them? Heck no! But we do it. Jesus did it for us. We do it for our brothers and sisters in Purgatory. What's the difference for bearing it for our hard-hearted brothers and sisters on earth? Nobody is perfect but we all are made in the image and likeness of God and thus inherently carry human dignity.

[warmbeebosoftbeebo]

Why don't you get your nose out of what other people are into kink wise?? Because even anal is uncomfortable and unpleasant for people and they would consider that violating and triggering. If you don't like the things someone says or posts then fuck off and unfollow instead of shame them for what they enjoy. Kink shaming is not cool dude. I'm sure there's plenty of people that hate anal and you wouldn't like being made to feel like a freak for liking it. Grow up.

oh, boy, buckle up.

i brought it up in a new post, not naming her or alluding to her post, because it is something seen so fucking often both in this fandom and on the internet generally. she also specifically said for him to squeeze his arm around her neck till she passes out. if she had said something like “i’d like him to stroke my neck while i hold my breath as long as i comfortably can and one or both of us plays with my pussy till i come” i would barely have cared, and it wouldn’t have gotten me back on my soap box again. she responded to my post in a reblog and i responded back. she initiated the conversation between us with that reblog. and i responded back, trying to explain my views clearly albeit longly, once. 

men choking women is a common sexual act, a meme, and a threat online, and within this fandom. “if you don’t like it fuck off”? honestly, that’s telling women to leave the public square and go back to the kitchen and bedroom and laying back and thinking of england if they can’t handle “robust speech” or sexuality in media in public. i couldn’t be online or in this fandom if i couldn’t handle seeing it, or refused to see it. 

here’s another link on the dangers of strangulation https://tonic.vice.com/en_us/article/jpnj5x/how-risky-is-it-to-be-choked-during-sex

this whole “anti kink shaming” thing is just.. if kink shaming is terribly wrong, then we literally cannot criticize anything ever, bc everything is “kinky” (a sexual turn on, a fetish) to someone somewhere. and this is an old joke, but what if your kink is kink shaming? thought we couldn’t criticize any kinks?

the reality is, almost everyone, at least those with any ethical discernment kink shames *something.* if they couldn’t find *anything* that was shrouded in “omg hot sexy stuff” objectionable, i’d honestly be scared of them, and would hope at least that victimized people would have to deal with them.

what about all sorts of dangerous things that are eroticized? i’m thinking specifically about purposely seeking out hiv (mostly men), unprotected pia, knowingly exposing another to a significant risk of contracting hiv (also men; women simply don’t pose the same risk both re “sexual” fluids other than blood and how it is contracted sexually, receptive pia being the highest risk, followed by receptive piv). re: you can talk about choking, being choked, say vaguely that you should do it safely, but not talk about WHY it’s dangerous, what stats are on injury and death, what can happen, etc is like saying you can talk about pia and condoms, but not hiv or other risks of injury from it. i didn’t focus on the danger/risk of pia in my initial post, but it is high, way higher than people think or want to believe. should we not be concerned with those who want to infect other people with hiv, and people who want to be infected or is that prudish, immature kink shaming? 

i’m sure there’s things you kink shame. for example, let’s examine pseudo child pornography eg a 18-19 girl pretending to be and usually looking like a naive 14 years old or younger child, with a man in his 40s while they roleplay that he’s her father/stepfather/friend’s father/uncle/coach while he “introduces” her to sex, usually violently, with a focus on men “ruining” and “spoiling” “innocence.” is that fine and dandy? is a father with teenage or preteen daughters watching this and whacking off to it fine and dandy? considering the rates at which girls are abused by their mom’s boyfriends and husbands, what if a man living with a woman and her kids whacks off to this? what if he finds himself fantasizing about her 12 year old daughter?

how about necrophilia? what if a man can only get hard, turned on, come if the woman he’s with *pretends to be dead*? what if he strangles a woman “consensually” until she passes out, then either continues or starts to enter her with his penis? what if he tells women he can only be turned on if he inflicts enough violence on her that he could have killed her?

a few years ago, there was an rcmp cop in canada, jim brown, who was found to have a “kink” for the kidnapping, torture (including bondage and use of knives)  and murder of women. he had porn of it, he looked for women to roleplay it, he posted porn he had made online, etc. one news story describes it thusly: “progresses from an apparent street scene of a woman walking past Brown sitting on a wall; he overpowers her; he hog-ties her, and he imprisons her in a cage.In one image, Mulgrew notes, Brown appears to be wearing only his regulation-issue Mountie boots and is aroused carrying a huge knife while the naked woman cringes in terror.” he also worked tangentially on the robert pickton case (a serial killer who murdered dozens of women, mostly indigenous and mostly in prostitution). was he a man who should work on such a case? should he be a cop hearing women’s stories of male sexualized violence? should he be looking at photographic and other evidence of rape, torture, kidnapping?

to get more obviously back on topic, strangulation is the third leading cause of male-induced/violent death for women, second only to murder with knives and guns. strangulation is the second biggest red flag for lethal male violence, second only to him threatening you with death. imagine if we eroticized other leading causes of death for other groups of people: shooting someone during sex, stabbing them in the torso, etc. carefully and safely, of course. how about complications during pregnancy and birth in teen girls? that’s the number one killer of girls 15-19 worldwide. why not turn that into something sexy too? car accidents are also a common cause of death. let’s sex that up too. heart disease and cancer are big killers too. lets look at the leading cause of violent death for young black men: homicide. for black boys, it’s unintentional injury. why not eroticize what leads to their deaths too?

interestingly, the “rough sex gone wrong” defense came to the public’s attention in another strangulation murder case https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/08/nyregion/consent-sexual-assault-rough-sex.html

and here’s a recent case, a rare one in that the man seems genuine in his remorse because he quickly confessed, of a young man strangling a young woman to death in seconds. she also had an interest in it and sought it out. she died anyway. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5492075/Killer-strangled-woman-death-sex.html “the pair had a ‘shared interest’ in ‘erotic asphyxiation’ …Chloe had died in 'seconds’ after he had seized her neck during sex.”

the ads i linked to featuring men strangling women: what do you think of those? how do you feel about how it’s portrayed in pornography? is opposing those kink shaming too, because lots of people, esp men, get off on it, and the men who make that porn generally want to make such pornography and usually have a lot of hatred for women. same with those who make the ads. they find it arousing.

it boggles my mind on how things that people would get raked over the coals for if they presented as humorous, gets a free pass because some guy somewhere gets an erection from it. like that rcmp cop? can you imagine if he was telling jokes like that in a comedy club? what the same people who defended him would be saying instead? but seek out vulnerable women when you’re a white male police officer, “roleplay” with them, make porn of it n post it online n you’re the bdsm martyr of the year, cruelly punished for your private life by prudish busybodies who need to mind their own business and keep their noses out of people’s bedrooms. there’s that public vs private divide. anything sexual is private, even when public, and you cannot criticize the private. rape jokes are bad, terrible, trivialize rape and sexual trauma and misogyny, but rape play is hot as fuck. you can humor shame and speech shame but don’t dare kink shame.

now onto why i referenced anal stimulation and entry, inc pia. i did so precisely bc most females experience of it with males is rape, painful, unwanted, etc. the more it happens, the more likely it is to be rape. the increase in college age people engaging in pia is treated like a big catcally joke and proof of sexual liberation and how awesome porn is and how it’s hot sex, but it is almost universally rape for young women and girls. strangulation and choking of women is seen similarly, and women and girls are expected to eroticize, engage in, and tolerate both. i brought it up precisely bc i like anal stimulation (as outlined in that post, excluding pia) but recognize that it is profoundly harmful in how it is practiced especially for girls growing up and young women, as well as women generally. if i was glib with anal entry of women (with a penis or something smaller) in my fic or posting about what i want to do with b, i’d want people to pull me up on it. it would be contributing to this coercive, painful sexual environment women and girls are in where they don’t want it and find it painful even though they are told they should, sex should be painful for women, women are a collection of openings for male use, etc. i purposely reign myself in and keep it to myself most of the time because of this.

you cannot read panic fic, surf tumblr, etc without certain “kinks” namely strangulation (and to a lesser extent choking), and daddy kink and dd/lg smacking you in the face. similarly, if i smacked someone in the face with how i depicted anal entry of women with men, i’d hope they’d rebel against it, tell me about it, etc. by all means, kink shame away. someone engaging critically with what i post doesn’t make me fucking melt or shivel up, literally or figuratively, and if you (general you, including me) post something publicly, we can expect reaction to it, esp if it’s not a direct confrontation but a “i’ve noticed this happening on tumblr/in fic/etc…” i’d say letting undue critique roll off one’s back, or engaging back n forth as two people wish to, is growing up. and hon, i’ve felt like a freak sexually, but not for that interestingly, but for my interest in tribadism and outercourse. not severely, but it was and sometimes still is there. 

[radicalandmathematical]

1. I don't include the T because I'm not talking about the T. I'm talking about the community of people who experience same sex attraction. Which is LGB people. Some trans people experience same sex attraction, and those ones are included in the LGB. Also... Way to bring America into a post about a British woman and the situation in Britain at the time she published her books? Can Americans leave America out of anything??? And even in America, pride was not started by trans women. If you're talking about Stonewall, it was started by a biracial butch lesbian, Stormé DeLarverie. It was also most certainly not the first instance of pride. There is an excellent post floating around about pre-Stonewall LGB history that covers this. I suggest looking into it. And I also suggest you stop assuming America is relevant everywhere.

2. Do you even know how it came out that he's gay? Back when they were making the movies the writers wanted to write a line where Dumbledore commented about a girl when he was young, and JKR was like "lol no he's gay, you can't do that." This indicates it was something she had decided a long time ago, and just wasn't able to include. She brought it up to prevent them from portraying him as straight, when his sexuality had never been explicitly mentioned. She wasn't trying to retroactively score woke points or anything. She brought it up when it was relevant and safe to do so. And there was still a big controversy about it! Still loads of homophobic people upset she had a gay character! As for the current movies, while she has some influence, she's not the only person involved. There are other people making decisions. Maybe don't put all the blame on her.

3. It's different because JKR is still alive. People change. We can look at a dead man from 200 years ago and say "yeah he was racist his whole life." But JKR is alive and capable of growing and learning. Using things from 20 years ago when there is no indication she would do the same today is silly. If she makes racist tweet sure, call her on it. But using things from 20 years ago to call her racist today is just illogical. I mean, there are things I said 5 years ago that at the time I didn't understand were racist, but now I do, and have changed my beliefs and opinions now that I get it. JKR is just as capable of changing.

Also if you don't know what any of the specific issues about race in the books are, maybe don't comment on them? Don't just take people's word that something is racist without finding out the specifics. Think for yourself. People say all sorts of things on the internet that are exaggerations or flat out untrue. When I heard that some people thought the books were racist, I asked which parts, and listened. And I also listened when other people pointed out that some of those claims of racism weren't entirely accurate when they gave detailed explanations. See the Cho Chang thing above.

Is anyone else tired of people bringing up the lack of lgb representation in the Harry Potter books as a gotcha against JKR? Ther series began in the 90s. Back then having lgb representation in mainstream media was very controversial. People still widely thought lgb themes shouldn't be present in media aimed at children. This was 20 years ago. Things were different.

Furthermore, they also use race portrayal in the books against her. While she did make mistakes, like in the naming of Cho Chang and the reference to Angelina Johnson as black being someone making fun of her hair(or so i hear? I don't personally recall), she made these mistakes 20 years ago. I fully believe she is well aware of the issues and has grown as a person and would not make the same mistakes today.

Stop using things from 15-20 years ago against her.

She's not perfect. But I'm proud of her for standing up for girls, women and lgb people when we're being silenced by supporters of trans ideology for speaking the truth.