#women seen as objects

[pokemon-radical-red]

Trans men are literally just a joke to so many people. I’ve seen multiple Tik Toks like “When the trans man with HUGE BOOBS(!!!) in a crop top gets mad at me when I misgender him.”

One of these had the OP’s comment of “Why are so many people in my comment section being transphobic towards trans men?”

It’s because you made this a safe space for people who hate trans men!!! You decided to describe trans men’s bodies in dehumanizing, sexualizing ways to make a joke out of us! In what world does “smh trans men are SO EMOTIONAL and expect us to instantly know everything about them and cater to them even though it makes my life so hard (I have to change a word),” not come off as repackaged sexism?

If you say that this is a made up situation, these people will immediately claim that this happens and has happened to them. It’s interesting that either they’re lying or they’re admitting that they’re sexualizing a real man’s body in a way that could easily trigger his gender dysphoria.

[gmos]

theres literally a show with 30+ seasons of beautiful autistic men in power armor beating the shit out of each other and developing the most insane codependent gayer-than-being-gay relationships but only like ~50 people on this website post about it

[canisalbus]

you say machete has to be closeted then why's he always wearing them little heels

Maybe he thinks he's a tiny bit nicer looking in them.

[spiderfreedom]

I read a book a while back about the erotic appeal of 'women with penises' (don't close the page yet I promise it's useful). the book was called Ambisexuality. it's basically two things, a history of the sexual fantasy of a 'woman with a penis' and a study of transgender women sex workers in australia. content warning for sex work and children forced into sex work.

in the history portion, one of the things it talks about is how it seems that prepubescent boys who enter the sex industry in some cultures are basically taught to perform femininity. dressed like women, taught to dance like women, perfume themselves like women, basically appear cosmetically like a woman. since prepubescent boys don't look too different from girls, many adult heterosexual johns found this attractive. the presence of the penis was considered a positive, because male customers knew how a penis worked and could understand it. from the book:

References to the training of older boys and young men, in the twin arts of seductive dancing and sex work, can be found in many historical religious texts, not just of Afghanistan but as an aspect of cultures in many cities in South Asia and the Middle East until modern times. [...] The historical record also provides clues that the link between feminised males and sex work even existed in some hunter-gatherer societies. In North America, the journalist and critic, Peter Ackroyd suggests that some native Indian societies accommodated feminised male sex work. The Pueblo Indians for example, maintained a mujerado, a 'trained male prostitute' in each village, who identified as a 'man-woman, not as a male [source mine]. Similarly, records suggest that the berdache were males who took on the roles of wife, communal concubine, prostitute and participant in certain sexual rites of native Indian tribes. The berdache wore women's clothing, did women's work and in sexual relations with their male partners, behaved like women as far as possible. Many Roman brothels offered boys of different races, skin colours and professional abilities. Boys from the Middle East, for example, were prized for their dancing abilities and exotic appearance, while boys from Northern Europe were valued for their bawdiness and sensuality. Some brothel owners refined the process of procuring, raising and training very young boys to an art form. Boys considered to possess the appropriate attributes were purchased as young as two or three years of age and were raised and trained by their owners. Their sole purpose in life was to entertain men and pander to the sexual tastes of wealthy clients. Many of these boys were feminised during their training. They were beautifully groomed and perfumed, had unwanted body hair removed and wore their hair long and curly. Some were trained to perform for their clients - as dancers, mimes, singers and storytellers. All were trained in fellatio, sodomy and analingus.

it's disturbing to think about how femininity is conflated with being attractive to men, so much that you can take a prepubescent boy, dress him up like a woman, and apparently plenty of people go "yeah, this is the perfect sex object, like a woman but better."

it also had a section on how trans women and gender non conforming men who dressed femininely across the world were basically often forced into prostitution. since they could not find employment due to their gender nonconformity, the only place they could get money was as prostitutes. being feminine dressed also meant they could make more money than gay male prostitutes who dressed in masculine style. from the book:

According to some cultural historians, the reason why the xanith presented as women was to enable them to make a living from sex work. As will be seen later, the suggestion that this lifestyle is driven by 'economic necessity' probably belies a considerable degree of individual choice in the matter. For many, the rewards of sex work led to a comfortable lifestyle, which was infinitely preferable to other occupations which paid less, demanded longer working hours and offered fewer other intrinsic benefits such as personal gifts.

there's a myth that there exists a certain type of person who enjoys being prostituted, because of some social category they belong to. it has variably applied to women of the lower classes, black people, gay men, and in this topic, trans women. it exists to excuse the dehumanization of these groups who are excluded from normal labor markets, experience higher rates of poverty, and enter sex work to make money.

i've noticed some radfems have suggested that trans women prostitutes 'enjoy' being prostitutes, on the basis of quotes from bailey's book 'the man who would be queen' and taking twitter quotes from unverifiable 'trans sex workers' at face value. but i would be very hesitant to believe that. just in the same way you would not believe a woman who told you she 'loves sex work' without doing further research on her background to see if this statement is honest or produced by trauma, you should also consider the same for transgender women and gender non conforming men. especially since they are often forced out of legitimate labor industry for gender nonconformity.

the idea that trans women inherently love prostitution reinforces the idea that there are feminine people who it is okay to degrade and treat as sex objects, because they love it. the femininity is taken to be a lure to men and proof that they love being 'used'. there may be some portion who are 'erotic professionals' who love it, just like there are women who say they same, but there's a high rate of traumatic background from trans women who become prostitutes. and that's before whatever traumatization happens during prostitution.

in short, there's a dirty history of treating gender non conforming male people as the sort of perfect sex object, the ideal combination of feminine presentation and "comprehensible" male anatomy. radfems should not help this myth by repeating it mindlessly. all this does is spread the idea that a. being dressed feminine means you exist to lure men, b. there exists a 'perfect sex object' who wants nothing more than endless sex with strangers for money, whose trauma, poverty, mental illness play no role in their life, and c. therefore there is no need to include these people in efforts to exit the prostitution industry, because they "love" it after all. no human is a perfect sex object. accepting that it can happen to one group of people means you naturalize it and allow the possibility it can happen to you.

[onaperduamedee]

I don't know if it's show bias, but I struggle to understand the reading of Moiraine as someone who is so driven by her mission that she doesn't care.

From the get-go, she flees the White Tower for fear of ending up Queen of Cairhien and as cruel a leader as the rulers in her family, although it would have meant control and power;

Getting knocked down and unable to channel, she stabs a former teacher to stop her from killing innocents who have little to do with her mission;

She rushes to the Blight to bond Lan and keep him from basically killing himself, even if again it is a gamble, and later on, the bond transfer is about saving him, albeit cruelly;

She uses her body as a shield to hold off a Forsaken in order to help Rand, sustaining serious injuries in the fight, although her sacrifice is mostly useless considering how overpowered she is;

Many times, she heals villagers, soldiers, Aiel, wolves, sometimes until she is on the brink of passing out;

She fights Shadowspawns in Tear, in the Waste just as bravely as Lan, despite not being battle Ajah and often being surrounded by Aiel who can do the job by themselves;

She tackles Lanfear, toppling with her inside a collapsing ter'angreal, effectively dooming herself and cutting herself from the narrative, to help Rand, Egwene and Aviendha.

Obviously, you could argue that each of these actions would bring her an advantage and in acting so, she was only playing her part in the pattern, without a care for the people she was helping, but that's such an ungenerous reading of the character given what the text provides.

Her mindset is utilitarian and pragmatic, but to see her ever-present doubts, her growing despair and raging hope in Rand and still interpret her as uncaring is mind-boggling to me.

Her whole speech in TSR regarding "People [fighting] for you who do not know it, any more than you know them" tells of someone who believes saving the world will require a lot of collaboration and awareness of each other, not merely machinations and control.

She is a hard woman, but uncaring she is not.

[yuri-for-businesswomen]

one of my many guilty pleasures is watching toxic dating shows and it has become standard that all the women have had „work done“ like at least botox, lip fillers and usually breast implants, sometimes a bbl, many have an onlyfans and all of them are aspiring influencers; anyways, weirdly the thing that puts me off the most is the makeup. sometimes they will interview the women in the morning before they got ready and did their hair and makeup and they always look so much better, good even despite the obvious injections and stuff. especially when the lashes are off. they look so silly and the women always, without fail look better without any makeup. what are we doing to our queens…

[comphetkoncass]

in terms of skimpy clothes and hypersexualized movements, the hypersexual movements bother me way more. constant boobs and ass poses are so much weirder than fighting in underwear. like, starfire's outfit doesnt actually bother me on its own. it only bothers me if she's drawn moving in a way that doesn't make sense. i care when her movement itself starts to parrot sex and sexuality.

anything can become sexy if you move a certain way in it, and that sexuality will ring true because you're trying to be sexy with certain movements, that's your body and you're far more connected to your body than clothes. but even if you wear straight up lingerie, not every single movement is going to be a hip swinging 2000% cleavage please fuck me pose unless you are literally trying to seduce someone.

you can wear lingerie to a fist fight, but you should still move like you're in a goddamn fist fight.

[o-uncle-newt]

I read Possession by AS Byatt after people told me "if you liked Gaudy Night you'll like this" and WELL.

Warning- spoilers for both books abound below!

So it sounded great- as a lapsed academic (though not in the field of literature by any means) there's a part of me that loves reading about academia because it's full of such obsessive people, and this book seemed to be exactly that and so I was excited.

Then I read it, and on the one hand, my first thought was "all these people are dull as heck, the only sane modern-day one is Val, and at the end of the day the historical stuff is just two people having an affair, who cares." My second thought was "there's just enough stuff here that makes me think that maybe the author knows that all of this is stupid, like the fact that Val is obviously one of the few sane ones here." But the ending made me doubt even that. Essentially, and I say this even as that lapsed academic, the author could not convince me to care about the important things at stake here, and as a result couldn't get me to care about the people who only seemed to care about those things.

I didn't care about Ash and LaMotte- they came across as two people high on their own supply who had a tawdry affair. (And each of them is the less interesting person, as a person, than their official partner!) As a result of not caring about them, I couldn't POSSIBLY care about Roland, Maud, and the rest of their crew, because their only functions were to be possessed by, and weirdly possessive of, these two entirely unworthy individuals, whose in-universe historical and literary significance Byatt couldn't convince me of, and to use that possession as a mirror for their own very lame romance. Beyond that they're utterly uninteresting, and there isn't even meant to BE much beyond that so it's not that surprising.

Anyway, I didn't like this book much, but it still made me think a lot. And there's a way in which a certain kind of person might say "well if it made you think then that's surely a sign of some positive quality" and... maybe? I don't know. I didn't hate all of it, and some parts were interesting, and I do have a whole separate list of things about the book that bug me including a breakdown of some of the book's (perceived by me) themes that I particularly disliked lol. Perhaps I'll post it another time. So I guess you can say it spurred me to thought, but loads of things that I don't like do that, and the only positive thing that that draws from me is that they're not downright dull.

The thing is, after finishing the book I was immediately struck by that "if you like Gaudy Night..." element, because it has a situation that felt weirdly similar (if for totally different reasons)- a young scholar stealing a letter from a library/archive. The circumstances are different- in Gaudy Night, the scholar does it to hide its existence so as not to contradict his thesis, and in Possession, the scholar does it so as to explore the document further, though still secretly- but there are still some interesting parallels vis a vis class. Possession goes into the class thing more than Gaudy Night does, but neither book goes much into it- the scholar is lower-class and someone who has scraped their way to their position, and is encumbered by a female partner of lower social and academic standing, and in the end they are juxtaposed against scholars who come from an elevated class and who have more money and opportunity. In Gaudy Night, Arthur Robinson is judged by the likes of Lord Peter Wimsey and a college full of women who don't have to do anything but think, teach, write, and grade papers; in Possession, Roland has to convince a bunch of academics of standing and resources to take a chance on him (and while this is more about money than class, he's the main one who's like "maybe it's good if Lady Bailey gets her wheelchair"). Byatt elides over this at the end by having him magically become in demand and on his way to achieving his academic goals, but I think in both books, the class element really could have taken on more significance in the text.

(I'd add as well that Byatt pits the upper-class and moneyed Maud, who of course is doing things for "the right reasons," vs the evil American businessman who clearly... doesn't care about Ash enough? Despite how much he clearly and obviously cares about Ash? The book was way more interesting when he seemed like a valid rival to the British team, who only thought that they deserved the letters more because of their obsession, rather than how it turned out at the end where the American dude is an actual cartoon villain. What made him genuinely less worthy besides having money without class, and of course having the bad taste to be American? What makes one scholar's possession more justified? Sayers was never this unsubtle.)

So that made me think more about Possession vs Gaudy Night, and the thing is, there are actual living people in Gaudy Night! Say what you will about the unworldliness of the academics at Shrewsbury, but you get a very keen view of their personalities by the end, even as they are (by necessity given the rules of their world) subsumed by academia, or subsume themselves in it. And the people who do fall in love are REALLY in love, and you understand why...

And somehow a book from 1935 feels far more interrogative of the possession (or lack thereof) found in love and romance, and just about the place of women in academia and relationships overall, than one from the late 80s. In Gaudy Night, Harriet accepts Peter once she has determined that despite their power differential (brought on by class, money, history, and to a degree gender) he will not threaten her personhood, because he has proven himself to her. In Possession, Maud accepts Roland because she has the power (money, class, position, even height) and so Roland actually cannot threaten her- and yet still that final scene is about her being taken by him, basically to prove some kind of a point. In contrast, in Busman's Honeymoon, the euphemistic sex scenes are about Peter trying to please Harriet.

When I say it's to prove a point, I'm paraphrasing Byatt, incidentally- who said: "And in the case of Maud I had made it very inhibiting. She was a woman inhibited both by beauty (which actually isn't very good for very beautiful women because they feel it isn't really them people love) and she was also inhibited by Feminism, because she had all sorts of theories that perhaps she would be a more noble kind of woman if she was a lesbian. And so she was a bit stuck. And Roland was timid because I am naturally good at timid men. It's the kind of men I happen to like. He's a timid thinking man, so of course it took him the whole book." I mean... yikes, but also that explains a lot. Maud can only bring herself to be with a man who is weak/effeminate (?) enough to justify whatever weird psyche Byatt has imagined up for her, but still she needs to get over her inhibitions and under him because... reasons. I don't know.

(Height is also interesting here as a point of contrast- Byatt makes Maud taller than Roland to make a point about how on the one hand she retains the power but on the other hand there is now even more of her that has to surrender. Peter and Harriet are the same medium height and wear the same size gown.)

I think the thing that most stuns me is how regressive Possession feels when it comes to gender politics on relationships than Gaudy Night does. I'd need a whole other post to talk about this, but the theme of Possession seems to me to be "relationships that produce things (whether art or children) are worth more than ones that don't." Roland is better with Maud than with Val because Val is a second rate scholar who drags him down (while supporting him financially) and Ash is better with LaMotte than with Ellen because LaMotte didn't only inspire his writing (Ellen's contributions are described only in the negative "didn't impede"), she gave him the child that Ellen refused to. Incidentally, in both cases it's the man pursuing a relationship that will give HIM something... But, to paraphrase Peter in Busman's Honeymoon, one wouldn't want to regard relationships in that agricultural light. Gaudy Night is about how two people can produce great things without each other but choose to be with each other for their own, and each other's, happiness. They aren't each less apart, and as I noted in a prior post, they don't need to solve cases together or conjoin their work in order for their relationship to be worth something. It is worth it for them to be together because it encourages some kind of inner balance within them and between them, as people. They enjoy collaborating but that is by no means the basis of their love (and, incidentally, I think that a lot of, if not most, detective series romances fail this basic test of "would they have fallen in love if they were accountants who met on a dating app." Peter and Harriet definitely would have- would, say, Albert Campion and Amanda Fitton have? I do NOT think so).

And here's the thing- another reason why Byatt's quote above is so off-putting is that it makes it clear that not only in the text but on a meta level, the purpose of the relationships is to prove a Point. I found Roland and Maud to have zero chemistry, and honestly I was expecting them to get together 3/4 of the way through and split up at the end when it turned out they had nothing in common- it seemed like that kind of book. I was kind of stunned when they only got together at the end in an "it's meant to be" way because nothing about it seemed meant to be. They were stuck together by that one thing and they each apparently needed the relationship for some kind of self-actualization or historical rhyming or other. (Whatever I say about Ash and LaMotte... at least they seemed to like each other!)

Peter and Harriet... they get together because they love each other. Do they change over the course of Gaudy Night, and over the course of the other books they share together? Of course they do. But if it makes sense, I'll put it this way- Harriet doesn't accept Peter's proposal as proof that she got over her hangups, Harriet gets over her hangups so that she can accept Peter's proposal. Her hangups only matter because they were keeping her from this particular kind of happiness- she was a fully actualized person even with them. She is a person who does things for human reasons so that she can build a mutually happy life with the person she loves, not a little plot mannequin being moved around in order to tell the author's desired Message. People can say what they want about Gaudy Night and its flaws, but despite the intricacies of its construction, nobody can call the characters' actions and motivations anything but brutally human.

Whether within their universes or on a meta level, the books have SUCH different things to say about the value and nature of love, the place of and purpose of sex, the place of art and intellectual accomplishment in relationships, all of the above in the context of femininity… and I can't help but feel that each time, Gaudy Night wins the contest. It's possible I'm missing something major about Possession, and maybe sometime I'll post the rest of my notes about the things I disliked and people can tell me what I'm wrong about- but if nothing else it made me appreciate Gaudy Night even more, so for that I'm grateful.

[kdjdhdhebx]

I never understood what feminists were on about having problems with the word bitch until I heard nick docks songs

[frostwork]

Yes I made a similar post but again

Hsr’s lore/story/gameplay/shorts the game itself has no business being as good as it is honestly im not even mad at the gacha anymore im in it for the plot like this is peak scifi to me how? Why? We just dont know but they are fucking cooking in that studio

[quidam-sirenae]

I’m also not saying the idea of Odysseus as a straying husband is a *bad* way to read the odyssey (Ovid read it that way!) it’s just way too overdone and people are starting to take it as fact not as one possible reading of the story

[catgirltoes]

Gotta be honest the constant objectification of women's bodies is a bit tiring sometimes.

[gucciguccigarbage]

"wow what photomatt did and said is such bullshit and tumblr as a site has been perpetuating a transmisogynistic double standard" you agree now that it's the big event but are you fucking normal about that double standard yourself? Do you reblog callouts toward queer people that exaggerate personal spats or lack /any/ interpersonal harm at all but reveal those queer people are into something which elicits a disgust response in you? Do you decide that trans women who do terrible enough things, like Christine Chan, are okay to degender or full-on misgender? Or do you notice when others do? Yeah, banning a trans woman for a frustrated hyperbolic violent comment while letting nazis and violent transphobes run free is the corporate sin here and easy to point and jeer at but are you contributing to this environment that makes it so easy to tear down queer people, especially trans women, especially sex workers? If the CEO had managed to have a little more tact, would you be right there with the contingent (which does exist) of people saying it was predstrogen's actions, not her gender, which got her this treatment? Are you somebody who has simply decided to write trans people out of your category of "deviancy" from societal norms rather than deconstructing the moral weight of that deviancy, leaving the marginalized to fall on that sword as those you think you're trying to target for "being into weird shit" go unscathed? How many people who are now joining in to clown on the easy transphobia helped make it possible in the first place?

[natsmagi]

it has been absolutely crazy seeing that anon call the way u draw femstars mugi “unrealistic and sexualized” because (and I’m about to knock anons socks off here) I am someone who has that EXACT BODY TYPE IRL. I’m more “average” than skinny but it’s still practically the same, and this anon is here insisting that my body type being represented in art is unrealistic, sexualized, and bad? like. yikes. I can’t remember exactly where I was going with this ask tbh but saying someone is drawing bad sexualized art because a girl has big boobs is like… way worse than drawing big boobs (drawing big boobs is great actually)

anyways I LOVE UR FEMSTARS DESIGNS SO MUCH AND I GENUINELY LOOK AT THE WAY YOU DRAW MUGI TO HELP ME WHEN I NEED TO DRAW A CHARACTER OF THE SAME BODY TYPE!!! UR ART INSPIRES ME SO MUCH

NO RIGHT ITS SO UNBELIEVABLY INSULTING ?????????? AND TO THINK THIS IS A COMMON MINDSET PEOPLE HAVE IN THIS FANDOM TOO PISSES ME OFF TO NO END. ITS WHY I CANT REALLY KEEP MY MOUTH SHUT WHEN IT COMES TO THIS SUBJECT BC HOLY SHIT. news flash if u leave ur room and go outside for a change ur gonna see people of all body types! including slim thick ones! isnt that crazy! GIVE IT A TRY!

and it pisses me off so severely too because these people always act morally righteous and that theyre fighting for some "better cause" or whatever the fuck, like theyre protecting us from the horrors that is Women With Big Boobs and its like. Genuinely what the fuck are you people trying to accomplish. i fail to understand the psychology behind "oh this body is being sexualized by men? Lets bully this body type out of existence because it is clearly just a sex thing then" LIKE WHAT??????? COMPLETELY MISSING THE MARK??????????? AND MAKING THE SITUATION A DOZEN TIMES WORSE???????????????? and its SO RARELY women or lesbians making these arguments too. We do not need your ass to fight for us and to add salt to injury? i see them calling ~c cups "normal size" which. Jesus fucking christ guys. so often when i see ppl bitch abt mugis boobs theyre like "why cant they just give her NORMAL boobs!!!" and, i do not have a big bust, but i am very flat. so these words very much affect me aswell. Literally causing harm to the broader community by spouting this reactionary nonsense and not thinking before you speak

AND WAHHHHHHHHHH WHATTTTT!!!!!! WHAT AN HONOR!!!!!!!!! THANK YOU SO MUCH🥹🥹🥹🥹🥹 THAT MAKES ME SO HAPPY AUSHDUAJHSDFKJ 💕💕💕💕💕💕💕 i am firm in my mugi headcanon and will not be swayed!!! so look forward to seeing more of her!!!! ❤️

[paradisetemporarilymisplaced]

wow I hate everything abt the world

[vanishingmoments]

What exactly was it about the late 70s thru early 80s that compelled directors to make their movies as intensely violently misogynistic as they could