#I mean lack of consent in children's media is kind of an issue

[dairy-farmer]

i'm sorry if this causes any misunderstanding, however are you a supporter of p0rnhub? it's known that it tracks children and such if i am not wrong. and that there are teens being abused by that platform.

answered out of order:

don't worry i think i understand the question!!

your statement is loaded and complex because of the depth of the issue and theres no way i can really touch on everything with the nuance it requires- shortly, i personally don't really watch 'porn media with actual people' and stuff because it's just generally uninteresting to me. there's not a single video or actor out there who can outdo or cater to my personal interests better than my imagination so it's just pretty much a waste of my time to even bother with it. so in general i'd say no, i'm not a supporter of something i don't even consume

as for the rest of your statement that's a pretty big claim and i absolutely believe it, i don't doubt there is a fair but if truth to it but the problem is not solely the porn sites.

recent legislation in the usa has been insisting that banning "pornography" is the only way to "save the children" which is a gross oversimplification of the issue and is mostly about being able to censor media and mine personal data under the guise of "protecting children and teens" because the usa does not give a shit about children and does not care about trafficking or teens getting abused on porn sites. but that sentence is also loaded and filled with a pretty big oversimplification of cause and effect 'porn hub traffics kids, so we should shut down porn hub' because that statement isn't fully true and shutting it or other porn sites down doesn't actually FIX or address the issue of children being abused.

so just to put things in perspective of generally how these things go: in 2011 reddit (a site not solely dedicated to pornography) got into hot water when CNN did a story on one of their most controversial subs called r/jailbait which was a subreddit filled entirely with pictures of exposed and naked underage girls/girls who LOOKED underage (but many were definitly underaged) reddit didn't see that and decide to shut it down themselves, no. they only did it AFTER pressure from the public and negative media attention.

why?

because websites/organizations/basically any institution you can think of from charities to universities and governments can be corrupt and prioritize money over doing the right thing and p0rnhub is not different.

they particularly have a history of corruption, it like all other porn sites, allowed revenge porn, and people's filmed sexual assaults to be posted and allowed to remain up, refusing to take both down because it was making them money despite victims pleading them to. its not until courts and legislation FORCED them into action that many changes were made to websites.

so yeah "support" for p0rnhub is not something i'd expect from anyone because of it's past actions and general lack of initiative to creating a platform where people who do consume porn are able to view it ethically. but that doesn't mean it doesn't have a place in the sex industry because for many sex workers it's how they make their money, how they make a living, which they DO have a right to do because it is legitimate work and they earn their pay as much as anyone. but the problem the online sex industry has are many.

(the sex industry in general is like a colander and things that shouldn't happen or be allowed to occur DO.)

filmed porn existed before the internet. actors and crews filmed elaborate adult films to be made into vhs tapes and dvds and i'm not saying exploitation didn't occur there as well. but the introduction of the internet meant there were no longer the safeguards in place for that work like age verification, consent forms, documentation, etc. but doing that with the internet is harder because if you enforce digital ID verification that kind of thing can FOLLOW sex workers and cause them problems like if they ever want to travel (there are plenty of accounts of sex workers being detained by very conservative countries and border agents when traveling). that plus the data issues of that personal data being collected and stored and what will happen to people if that data gets leaked or breached?

with the internet anyone anywhere can upload videos and that opens a lot of doors for things to happen and people to be hurt.

websites have a responsibility to ensure trafficking and abuse material is reported to authorities and removed from platforms so the victims can't be further victimized by people seeing them like that.

p0rnhub and porn sites have their problems but never forget that it is ultimately the fault of the people making those abuse videos and materials (them and all the contributing social factors that allow for people to be trafficked and exploited in the first place) . the people conducting the abuse are the source of the issue along with the people who form the demand for that material. pornhub or pornography sites are a method of distributing it whether voluntary on their part or not (and if pornhub makes money from those videos the process to be sued by victims should be significantly easier)

p0rnhub is the world's largest pornography website so they have much more of an obligation to addressing the issues faced within adult material and the internet than others and until they're willing to take that responsibility and do the right thing because its the right thing and not because it will make them money then i don't see much reason for why anyone can or should "support" them. (and since i've never seen a company fail to place profits over people i don't see that happening. just like reddit in 2011 they will drag their feet on everything until their arm is bent backwards and they're FORCED to make those changes)

even if they do improve they're not truly entitled to business or profit because of their failures in the past. if you are a frequent watcher there are other sites who have more of a dedication to being fully transparent and ethical like websites seen here.

#answered asks #asks #anonymous

[sassyhazelowl]

Anyway, in addition to my dad (somewhat incorrectly) using the term woke. Yesterday an administrator from the school grounds asked me if I’d heard of the term/knew what it meant. I said yes and started to explain. No one likes my literal and historical explanations with large vocabulary, so I got talked over LOL. He tried to explain ‘woke’ to one of his peers with the help of another Boomer. Anyway, none of them appear to know what woke means in the true sense (they were using it in the cynical pop culture way) or where it came from. Language is interesting, but woke is probably not a term that should’ve been adopted by the wider public, given the importance of its original context.

#personal #and before someone asks 2 out of the 3 were not white #but were also not black #none of them would know sj or activism if it bit them in the ass #'it's like cancel culture!' #>.> Mr. F no #'you know when the prince kisses sleeping beauty without her consent and people complain? that's woke' #uhhhhh #I mean lack of consent in children's media is kind of an issue #but maybe not the best example to explain woke #basically they were saying 'wokeness' were whiny people ruining media online #specifically whiny millennials who love destroying the fabric of society for the sheer pleasure of destruction LOLOL #I think people are confusing PC with woke #one involves knowing one involves doing

[jojotichakorn]

my thoughts and opinions on "lovely writer": criticizing the critic

tw for discussions of age gaps, rape, and sex

before i turn into the mean and constantly dissatisfied archer that we all know and hate, i just want to say that i liked this show. i think it's great, actually! gene and sib are appropriately cute, the premise is nice, and the attempt at criticizing the industry is... well, an attempt, which is better than nothing. moreover, "lovely writer" came with gifts because it gave me my new favorite character, so you can't go telling me i'm trying to completely obliterate it or something.

besides, this specific post isn't going to get into analyzing the show as a whole anyway. i won't be talking about any irrelevant plot points, cinematography, sound design, or anything like that, though i could probably write a post just as long as this one about that side of things as well. however, i am here to specifically look at the problematic things that were both criticized by the show and included in the show without any criticism. i'm going to talk about the more serious side of things here, which means i'm going to get serious. and i'm going to be harsh. very harsh.

gene and nubsib: yes's and no's

overall, the relationship between gene and sib was a fair attempt at showing something complex, yet ultimately quite healthy, which i appreciate. there were some things i was especially glad about. the fact that sib dated other people before settling on getting together with gene, for example, makes the whole situation a little less codependent. however, as much as this show prides itself on not wanting to romanticize problematic relationships, there are at least two major problems with genesib.

the age gap (and why it was not needed)

i've tried my very best to give this entire concept the benefit of the doubt. at first, i was convincing myself that they were simply close childhood friends, then i was trying my best to believe that even though sib did have a sort of crush on gene (which sometimes happens to little children), gene only saw him as his younger brother, but eventually, the show gave me no choice, but to deem the entire storyline problematic, because they did their best to romanticize that relationship - from gene's dad seeing the "early signs" to the counting and kissing the cheek turning to counting and full-on lip-locking in the last episode.

i could go into how this could all easily be mended if little sib was shown as kind of obsessed with his older friend, but gene was shown as not being anywhere near interested in the kid. but the real question is - why was the age gap needed at all?

i've researched the age of the boys during the flashbacks to the best of my ability and it seems that gene is 11 and sib is 6 or 7. if sib was the same age as gene (or maybe just one year younger, but not any more than that), not only would none of it feel weird, it would also be quite appropriate to explore that first glimpse of romantic feelings some of us experience exactly around that age. i don't think it's necessary for sib to be much younger than gene (children can be just as impressionable at 11 as they are at 7, and as for gene being surprisingly nice and helpful and the other kids not wanting to play with sib, he could have easily been - for example - bullied by his peers instead, which would have the same effect).

moving forward to the present, i don't think the lack of an age gap would affect the storyline that much either. even if they desperately needed sib to be a university student, they could have that one-year difference i've talked about before, which is not as significant. sib could be in his last year of uni, while gene could have easily written his very first novel during his university years, which would actually make more sense (since that guaranteed him employment and freedom to write after he finished uni; and i would rather believe that he had time to write his first novel in-between classes than in-between shifts at work, which he would surely need to have if he started writing after finishing university).

so that brings me back to my initial question - why was it needed? and much like the show often does, i will leave this one up for your interpretation because i do not have any sensible answers myself.

the issue with sex and consent

"but archer!" - i hear you exclaim - "lovely writer is known for explicitly denouncing rape romanticization in bls, how could there possibly be any problems with consent here?" and i hear you, my dear reader. and you aren't incorrect, "lovely writer" is indeed very explicit at calling out bls for having rape scenes (and i do appreciate that). however, as i'm sure you know, there are different ways in which consent can be taken from a person, and there are different non-consensual acts that someone might perform. for example, there are many different forms of coercion, such as the person being persuaded until they feel like they have no other choice, but to say yes. touching someone or kissing someone without asking for permission are also non-consensual acts. i can go on and on, there are many examples outside of what so many people consider rape.

now, what if i tell you that though there (thank the gods) has been no rape present in "lovely writer", not all scenes with gene and sib are consensual? well, that's what i'm telling you because it's the truth. both the first kissing scene and the scene where gene and sib "try out different poses" have clear coercion in them. the entire "joke" of the scene before gene and sib's first time is literally built upon the concept of "a person is trying to run away from someone, who wants to have sex with them" and it is NOT funny. the later reveal of gene actually looking up how to have sex seems to be there on purpose, to show that everything that's happened is "ok" because gene was thinking about it. as a sensible person, i will only accept actual enthusiastic consent and not someone possibly maybe probably considering it. not to mention that right before having sex, sib asks gene one last time if he is sure, which is great, except it is immediately followed by "i'm not going to let you change your mind anymore", which - daily reminder - you are allowed to stop having sex at any point during the act if you start feeling uncomfortable with it. that's absolutely normal.

now the problem that we seem to run into here is that "lovely writer" appears to think that it's ok to push someone to the limit until they either finally agree or confidently and loudly disagree. the drama has repeatedly shown us that actually forcing someone to have sex is not ok; however, persuading and otherwise coercing someone, as well as taking an approximate guess of them wanting to have sex based on some marginally related factors, is ok. i would like to once again remind everyone that all of that is not ok.

one more issue i want to bring up in connection with sex is something i wish was common knowledge: it is NOT supposed to hurt during your first time. whether you are planning to have vaginal or anal sex for the first time, it should not hurt. and if it does, something has definitely gone wrong and you need to stop. you are not supposed to experience any pain or discomfort during sex, including your first time (outside of desired and therefore intentionally inflicted pain, but that's not what i'm talking about here). i have seen this misconception brought up many times in bls along with the other person "thanking the person who got hurt for bearing the pain to bring them pleasure" and absolutely none of that is normal. stop. please, just... stop.

criticism of the BL industry

there are certainly quite a few things i liked about the way "lovely writer" criticized the many problems that surround bls. i think they dealt especially well with the fan aspect. the breaches of privacy that are considered normal, the toxicity of social media that encourages people to comment on other people's personal life, harass and stalk them - all of that was shown in its full glory (or rather horror) and clearly condemned. it was also interesting to see how easily everyone around sib fell into the routine of having to hide genesib's relationship, just because "that's what's supposed to be done in these situations" - even tum did that without thinking twice.

however, i have not spent the past three years hating gmm for a show trying to criticize the industry not to focus on criticizing the production company and everyone professionally involved with the making of bls. don't get me wrong - they didn't completely overlook that side of things, but i found the way they approached it dissatisfying.

like yes, tum fights with his sister (aka sib's manager) and calls her out for her terrible actions, and the publisher (bua) eventually apologizes for what she did, but all of that feels a bit too... personal. i do not care about these individual stories. i care about you saying that the whole system is broken because it very much is. i wanted manner of death but with the bl industry, and instead, i got an "uwu the fans are demanding we do this, and our hands our tied" (which is a lie) and "uwu i'm just trying to make money" (which i mean... if you feel ok milking even more money than you already have by doing something unethical and immoral, then be my guest, but also go fuck yourself). besides that, i didn't see any criticism of tabloids or exploitative celebrities either (both of which we had examples of in the show), and that was kind of disappointing.

coming back to the fans for a moment, i also think that the criticism of real people shipping was entirely unsuccessful. we basically mostly got an "oh, what if this person's partner thinks they are actually dating", which... if a bunch of people on the internet who do not know your boyfriend personally and make all their judgments from screenshots and their imagination can convince you that your boyfriend is cheating, i've got some bad news for you and also a number for a therapist. partly i know why it was so complicated for them to get into it properly - the issue with real people shipping is an issue of privacy, boundaries, the perception of celebrities, acceptable interests, and many other complex topics. however, it's better to not criticize something than to criticize it badly and inaccurately (because the latter usually leads to even more encouragement of whatever you were attempting to criticize).

aey: the flamboyant villain

aey certainly starts as a promisingly complex character, but the farther we go from his backstory and his family, the less complex and the more evil he gets. eventually, the trauma he goes through is no longer enough to give him a get-out-of-jail-free card, and he loses all remaining sympathy after sexually harassing gene and pretending to drug sib. and i did start this post by saying that i am not to analyze any plot points or characters from the show here; however, i'm saying all this to prove a point that aey is a clear villain in the show. this is further cemented by the fact that by the end of the show he loses the only two people who cared about him, and the very last moment with him in the show is literally just him crying for about 3 minutes. there was no redemption arc, no pity, no revenge - he was left alone and broken, clearly punished by the narrative. and i've got a bone to pick here as well.

one of the first things that we find out about aey is that he is gay, and quite openly so. he is repeatedly described as very feminine by many characters, he flirts with men, he talks about being good in bed, and his entire character is built upon being gay (half of it directly, and the other half due to the fact that his entire backstory and therefore personality is also built upon the fact that he is gay). he is - for the lack of a better term - the gayest character in the show and the only one who is loud about being gay not because he is in love but simply because it is a part of him and he doesn't want to hide it. and he is the villain. not the disgusting publisher or the terrible manager - no, this guy was specifically chosen to ruin everyone's lives. and i can't say i'm particularly happy about that. *british voice* seems a bit homophobic love

not quite queer enough

as i said, aey is openly gay. gene and sib also eventually say that they are gay, gene's father teep is queer, so are tiffy and mhok. but it just doesn't seem to come up as much as it would in real life. the only time anyone has a problem with any of the characters being queer is when we deal with the parents. but knowing actual queer thai actors in real life, we are all aware how hard it can be for them, but it has not come up even once for aey, gene or sib (with genesib only being a problem because they are a "non-shippable couple"). being queer is far from being a non-issue in the industry, and i found it incredibly weird that it was never brought up (and i would also prefer if they brought that up instead of showing the unaccepting parents plot for the millionth time).

same goes for the lack of conversation around queer people on set. i think we all have a wonderful example of how much better a bl can get simply when it involves a queer director and/or screenwriter (gods bless p'aof), gay actors, etc. i also thought it was a missed opportunity that gene being a gay man writing a bl novel was never highlighted. if anything, everyone made a big deal out of him being a man writing a bl - never mind that he is a gay man that is far more qualified to write bls than a straight woman.

in conclusion, there are simply not enough queer issues talked about here for a show that is about queer people facing difficulties while making a queer drama.

tiffy and tum: the good, the bad, and the ugly

overall, tiffy and tum are quite cool. outside of my own personal feelings, i really liked the clear reversal of gender roles they have going on: he knows lots about make-up, she knows nothing about it, he knows how to sew, she knows how to repair a car, etc.

tiffy is also a nice addition to the precious few queer girls we have in bls. however, the way her being bi is executed... it isn't great. when she first talks about dating girls to tum, she says things like "even though i look like this" (implying queer girls have a certain look?) and "maybe it seemed normal because i was at an all-girls school" (which wtf does that even mean?). i think the worst thing, though, was when she assumed tum was gay. my best guess is she thought so because she initially thought that tum and gene were a couple; however, she should be the first person to know that just because he likes men, it doesn't mean that he doesn't like women or any other gender. even though there was nothing explicitly leading me to make this conclusion, this whole thing did kind of feel like the old "flipping the switch" stereotype (meaning, she used to like women, but now she likes men, and both of them can't happen simultaneously).

make it make sense

i think i've never been more confused in my entire life than when i found out that the director of "lovely writer" also happens to be the director of "th*arnt*pe". and if at first, i was asking a lot of questions about this peculiar individual, who went from working on the worst rape-romanticizing show we have ever had to a show that explicitly states that rape is not normal. but the more i thought about it, the less i was interested in him, and the more i was interested in whoever made the decision to hire him. there are dozens of different directors that have worked specifically on bls, and even more that haven't. yet out of all those, you decided to choose this one. the dude, who before your show has only directed the show with the biggest rape-y vibes. that casts a particular kind of shade on the entire show that i simply do not like.

conclusion

at the end of the day, i think what "lovely writer" tried to do was very interesting. it succeeded in some ways and failed in others. frankly, i think this show could have easily been made better if someone queer was involved in making it. that's always true, but especially so, when we try to talk about the issues of making a queer drama. either way, it's certainly a good start to this conversation; however - as i said - i'm still waiting for my manner of death but with the bl industry. this was unfortunately not it.

#it is here it is queer it has some controversial hot takes #archer speaks #lovely writer

[uncloseted]

Recently I've been seeing some tiktoks from people who are apparently "against adoption". I don't really go into their profiles to see what they mean exactly and what they think we should do with children in foster care. They always say that "no one is entitled to another person's baby". At the risk of sounding insensitive, it looks like most of them were adopted and had a bad experience with it and probably resent their birth parents for "abandoning" them. But I don't really know.

I also know that there are some problems with the adoption system in America, but I'm not extremely familiar with it because I don't live there. Please tell me if you need more information and I'll look for it

Honestly, you have no idea how much I've wanted someone to ask my opinion on this 😂 TikTok has been trying to feed me these videos, too, and I have very strong feelings about them. I've been wondering if the fact that TikTok is a Chinese company has something to do with why anti-adoption TikToks keep getting promoted, since China is one of the most common countries that the US adopts from.

I think you're probably right in your assessment that a lot of the very vocal anti-adoption people on social media are people who were adopted themselves and have unresolved trauma around it. Many of them seem like they're not really in a place emotionally where they can imagine experiences of adoption that aren't like their own, or situations in which adoption might be logistically necessary.

That said, there are some serious problems with how we approach adoption in the US, and those problems are important to talk about. So first let's go over some of the issues that the adoption system in the US has, and then we can talk about some potential solutions to those issues and why being totally anti-adoption doesn't really make sense.

What Does Adoption Look Like in the US?

To start, let's go over what adoption actually looks like in the US. The US has an unusually high rate of adoptions- about 3 adoptions per live birth, in contrast to countries like Sweden and Norway (1.1 per 100 live births) and Australia (0.2 per 100 live births). Approximately 15% of those adoptions are international, 40% are from foster care, and 45% are "other" (including voluntary adoptions through domestic adoption agencies and stepparents or other family members adopting a child directly). Roughly 2-3% of all children under the age of 18 are adopted. Infertility is the most common reason that parents seek to adopt a child they're not related to. Kinship adoptions (children being adopted by family members or close family friends) are typically the first option considered by foster care workers when children are removed from their homes.

Types of Adoption

In the US, we have both open and closed adoptions. Open adoptions allow the biological parent to be in touch with the adoptive parents and the child, and provide the adoptive family with identifying information about their biological parent. In some states, adoptive and biological parents can enter into a legally binding contract that enforces visitation rights and what information can be exchanged about the adoption and about the child.

Closed adoptions seal all identifying information in order to protect the identities of the biological and adoptive parents, as well as to protect the child's identity. This is generally done in cases where the child is adopted as a baby, where the adoptive parents don't want their adopted child to be able to find their biological parents or to know anything about them. An estimated 5% of adoptions in the US are closed.

Disruption

In the US, we also have a process known as "disruption", which is ending an adoption. Sometimes, an adoption is disrupted before the adoption is finalized. Other times, disruptions are a court proceeding after the adoption has been made legal- more like a divorce. Disruptions can happen because the adopted child has psychological, developmental, or health issues the adoptive family can't handle or was not aware of prior to the adoption, or because the parents cannot handle being parents themselves. Disruption seems to be especially common in international adoptions, where children have suffered from spending their first few years in an orphanage. One US Department of Health and Human Services review suggested that 10-25% of adoptions are disrupted or dissolved, but it is unclear how frequently this happens because of the social stigma around disruption. Frequently, post-finalized disruptions (also known as "rehoming") are not regulated, so the child's new housing situation is not investigated to see if it is the best place for the child. As a result of this lack of oversight, rehoming is a target for child and sex traffickers.

What are the Problems With Adoption in the US?

Foster Care

Okay, so now let's dig into some of the big problems that the US adoption system has. The first one I want I want to talk about is issues with the foster care system in the US. There are a lot of issues to do with foster care, but for now I want to focus just on children who are adopted out of the foster care system.

Foster care is when a child is placed into a group home or the home of a state-certified caregiver. The state makes all legal decisions for the child, while the foster parent is responsible for their day to day care. Despite the fact that foster parents go through a licensing process that determines their fitness to be a foster parent and requires foster parents to take parenting classes, one third of foster children in the US report being abused by a foster parent or other adult in the foster home.

The goal of foster care is generally reuniting families when possible; 51% of children who exited foster care in 2010 were reunited with parents or caretakers, 8% went to live with a relative, and 21% were adopted by new parents. The majority of children are placed into foster care due to concerns of neglect (81.2% of cases in California), but those issues are not always resolved once the child enters into the foster care system.

Children who have been in the foster care system are disproportionately likely to have a mental illness, and some studies suggest that as many as 47.9% of foster care youth show signs of serious emotional or behavioral problems. In California, as many as 30% of previous foster children are diagnosed with PTSD. Nearly half of all children in foster care have chronic medical problems. Only 56% of children in foster care graduate from high school (compared to 89.80% of the general population), and 3% graduate from college (compared to about 34.98% of the general population). The emotional trauma that can accompany having been in the foster care system may make children more difficult to adopt and make it more difficult for them to adjust to their adoptive family. About 10% of children placed in foster care stayed in foster care for five years or more.

Further, never being adopted from the foster system comes with negative consequences of its own. After aging out of foster care, 27% of males and 10% of females were incarcerated within 12 to 18 months. 50% were unemployed, 37% had not finished high school, 33% received public assistance, and 19% of females had given birth to children. Before leaving care, 47 percent were receiving some kind of counseling or medication for mental health problems; that number dropped to 21% after leaving care.

There is some data to suggest that because of the way financial incentives are set up in the foster care system, there's a financial incentive for the Department of Children and Family Services to remove children from their parents and keep them in the foster care system. There is also some data to suggest that unfit people become foster parents for the financial benefits.

International and Interracial Adoptions

Now, let's talk about international adoptions. I think when a person uses the word "adoption" this is typically what we think of- an American adopting a baby from a developing country to "give it a better life" in the US. The US is responsible for around 50% of all cases of international adoption. This practice is seen by some to be patronizing or neo-colonialist, particularly since there are children who need adoptive families within the US.

Per the Hauge Adoption Convention, inter-country adoptions should be made in the best interests of the child. Despite this, international adoptions are more likely to be products of adoption fraud than domestic adoptions. Because international adoption is a popular option in the US, instead of being about finding homes for orphaned or abandoned children, international adoption sometimes becomes about finding children for first world parents who are looking to make an international adoption. Infants are particularly "in demand" in the international adoption market, which creates a financial incentive to identify more infants for adoption even though most children available for adoption internationally are school-aged. Because of this demand for international children to adopt that outpaces the supply of international children who need an adoptive family, adoption fraud occurs.

Adoption fraud can take many forms. For example, the birth parents may have not consented to the adoption of their child at all, are under the impression that their child will be returned to them after a period of time, or were paid to relinquish custody of their children. The child may have living relatives who are willing to adopt, they may be represented as being more impoverished than they actually are, or they may be represented as having no siblings even though they do.

International adoptions are also frequently interracial adoptions, which can create some unique difficulties. Adoptees who are POC but whose parents are white still face societal discrimination, particularly if their adoptive parents live in a predominantly white community. Their identities are fundamentally different to those of their parents, and so they may struggle with feeling "different" to their family. Children of interracial adoptions are more likely to report feeling like they don't fit in anywhere, although this can be mitigated by how the adoptive family discusses race and ethnicity, how they encourage their child to engage in socialization with other people of their race/ethnicity, and how they construct a "shared family identity" that does not center race or physical appearance.

Familial or Kinship Adoptions

The last thing I want to talk about in this section is familial or "kinship" adoptions versus non-familial adoptions. As I mentioned above, kinship adoptions are typically the first option when a child is removed from their home or loses their parents. Up to 36% of children who are adopted from foster care are adopted by relatives, and around 50% are reunited with a birth parent. I had difficulty finding the number of children who are directly adopted by relatives without being put into foster care first, but know that it's relatively high. Kinship adoptions are thought to minimize trauma since the caregiver is familiar to them, kinship adoptions are more likely to preserve sibling groups, and the caregiver is more likely to live in the same community (meaning that the adopted child can continue attending the same school and won't have to move).

Proponents of kinship adoptions say that children in the care of relatives experience increased stability, fewer placements, are more likely to express positive feelings about their placements, and have fewer adverse behavioral and mental health outcomes. It is important to note that some of these factors are not directly related to familial ties themselves; for example, the reduction in behavioral and mental health problems may be due in part to spending less time within the foster care system when compared to children without family ties. Kinship adoption also increases the likelihood that the children will be reunited with their biological parents in some capacity.

Detractors of kinship adoption argue that we prioritize kinship adoptions because they are less expensive, entail less vetting and follow ups, and reduce risk of liability. They argue that kinship adoptions encourage people who should not be caring for children to do so, and that the financial incentives involved in the arrangement complicate the situation.

Difficulties Being an Adoptee

There are difficulties that can be associated with being an adopted child, particularly for international adoptees or adoptees who were previously in foster care. Adoption research can be somewhat difficult to parse because researchers do not always differentiate between different types of adoptees when recruiting for their studies. Additionally, researchers are more likely be looking at a clinical population to begin with (adoptees already diagnosed with a mental health disorder), so the data they find may not be generalizable to the entire adoptee population.

As we talked about above, international or interracial adoptees can develop feelings of a lack of acceptance or difficulty understanding their identity. Foster children can struggle to cope with the trauma they experienced before being removed from their environments, the ensuing instability that can occur from being moved within the foster care system, and the trauma from the foster care system itself.

The impact of adoption before birth (when a biological parent agrees they will let a person become the adoptive parent once the child is born) on the adoptee seems to be less clear, since the adoptive parent is the only parent the adoptee has ever known. It seems that having a stable, secure, loving, honest, and supportive family is the best predictor of outcomes, whether the child is adopted or not.

Other concerns that I've seen raised on TikTok specifically relate to the role of an adopted child in the adoptive family. They sometimes raise the belief that children are being adopted with the intention of being "parentified" (to provide physical and emotional support for the parents as opposed to the other way around). I couldn't find any evidence that this happens, but I did find a lot of articles about adoptive parents who are looking to help their adopted child stop exhibiting parental behaviors.

I also see concerns that a child is adopted with the purpose of fixing a marriage or to help the parent feel fulfilled in their life. I couldn't find any data on this claim, either. I imagine it does happen. But it also happens in parents who decide to have a biological child, and I would wager a guess that it's less likely to happen in the case of adoptions because there's an extensive vetting process before a person or couple can legally adopt.

Why Adoption is Sometimes Necessary

I do think there are cases in which adoption is necessary. In childhood development research, there's this concept called "adverse childhood experiences". These are various forms of abuse, neglect, and dysfunction that a child may experience. In the original study, the ACEs were as follows:

Did a parent or other adult in the household often or very often... Swear at you, insult you, put you down, or humiliate you? or act in a way that made you afraid that you might be physically hurt?

Did a parent or other adult in the household often or very often... Push, grab, slap, or throw something at you? or Ever hit you so hard that you had marks or were injured?

Did an adult or person at least 5 years older than you ever... Touch or fondle you or have you touch their body in a sexual way? or Attempt or actually have oral, anal, or vaginal intercourse with you?

Did you often or very often feel that ... No one in your family loved you or thought you were important or special? or Your family didn't look out for each other, feel close to each other, or support each other?

Did you often or very often feel that ... You didn't have enough to eat, had to wear dirty clothes, and had no one to protect you? or Your parents were too drunk or high to take care of you or take you to the doctor if you needed it?

Were your parents ever separated or divorced?

Was your parent or caretaker: Often or very often pushed, grabbed, slapped, or had something thrown at her? or Sometimes, often, or very often kicked, bitten, hit with a fist, or hit with something hard? or Ever repeatedly hit over at least a few minutes or threatened with a gun or knife?

Did you live with anyone who was a problem drinker or alcoholic, or who used street drugs?

Was a household member depressed or mentally ill, or did a household member attempt suicide?

Did a household member go to prison?

ACEs are associated with high-risk health behaviors such as smoking, substance abuse, promiscuity, and severe obesity, as well as health conditions such as depression, heart disease, cancer, lung disease, and overall shortened lifespan. Children who had four ACEs had a seven fold (700%) increase in alcoholism, a doubling of risk of being diagnosed with cancer, and a four fold increase in emphysema. An ACE score above 6 was associated with a 30-fold (3000%) increase in attempted suicide. The greater the number of ACEs in a person's childhood, the more likely it is that they will be at risk for negative health and wellness outcomes.

I bring this concept up because adoption is essentially one ACE. It is traumatic to be removed from your primary caregiver, especially if you're old enough to remember it. But being left in a dysfunctional household will typically result in several ACEs over a child's lifetime. When these kind of events occur, it's important to immediately reduce the risk that the child will experience another one, whether that means removing the child from their home or not.

But even if you believe that adopting a child is the equivalent of 10 ACEs, there are some situations in which adoption is unavoidable. If a child loses both their parents, adoption is unavoidable, especially if they have no living relatives. If a child is "safely surrendered" (abandoned at a site such as a hospital or fire station), adoption is unavoidable. If a pregnant person decides they don't want a child, adoption is (and should be) unavoidable. We shouldn't be forcing parents to give up their children, but we also shouldn't be forcing biological parents to raise a child they don't want and aren't ready for. I think people who are fully anti-adoption fail to consider these types situations.

So What Can We do Better?

I am 110% with anti-adoption advocates when they say that there are real problems within our adoption system. But to get rid of adoption entirely is to almost literally throw the baby out with the bathwater. I'm not an expert in this field by any means, but it seems that some things we can do to improve the adoption system might include:

Introducing comprehensive sex education into schools, making access to birth control options inexpensive and easy, increasing access to abortion

Introducing easily accessible options for mental health treatment to anyone who needs it

Offering more support to parents who are struggling to take care of their child, with the goal of reducing the number of children who are removed from their biological parents to begin with

Reducing the prison population by decriminalizing certain victimless crimes

Tightening restrictions around who can be a foster parent or an adoptive parent, regardless of their relationship to the child, and standardizing those requirements across the country

Requiring all adults in a household to be considered "parents" to the adoptive/foster child, meaning that they are also subject to restrictions and foster/adoptive parent training

Putting regulations in place for "rehoming" a child

Encouraging domestic adoptions before international adoptions, if not ending the process of international adoptions entirely

Making rehabilitation of parents and reunification of families the goal except in extenuating circumstances

Ending the practice of completely closed adoptions, and legally protecting post-adoption contracts

Providing better mental health support for adopted children

Providing better resources for parents looking to adopt, including required parenting classes for states that don't already have them and specific training for parents who are adopting from the foster system, adopting interracially, or have other circumstances that may make their situation more emotionally complicated

Realigning financial incentives so that family reunification and adoption are the goals

[queerfables]

Tbh I respect the hell out of Misha Collins for being like "Yeah, this is not the hill I'm gonna die on. Not like this. Not today."

The man once made a 20 minute video apologising for spelling his own character's name Cass instead of Cas and kept a straight face the entire time. He doesn't care about ship wars or whether we've decided imaginary incest between consenting adult brothers is hot or despicable this year. He's not actually part of the fan community, he's just a little better at navigating it than most of his co-workers, and for that he's constantly asked to take a stand on the pettiest fucking dramas. I do not blame him for taking the most painless out available in this case.

Lots of people who are actually part of our communities are too afraid to engage with a nuanced discussion of this issue because there are awful consequences to expressing anything short of total and unequivocal censure of wincest. I've seen people say that if you ship wincest you're a freak, a danger to your siblings, that you should never be around kids, that you deserve to die. I hate seeing how vicious fandom has become about this. I think it's horrific that the party line is "if you disagree with us you deserve our cruelty" and it's created a culture that hurts people who conform just as much as people who don't (because the lines for how to conform are always shifting, and the cost of failing is huge, and I've seen first hand the anxiety that creates).

I have many, many things to say about this, but importantly, from the outside it's really hard to tell how serious this stuff feels to people who are inside it. From the outside, we're just arguing about fictional characters. Someone who's not deep into fandom or anti-porn movements isn't going to look at people shipping wincest and think "this is putting children in danger" because - well, because there's a number of steps your logic needs to take to get there and some of them rely on assumptions not everyone will make. And then on the flipside, someone who isn't involved in this conversation also isn't going to understand how badly people get villainised and harassed for the way they engage with a fictional story. Even if that harrassment is happening to them! They're going to think "wow, I didn't mean to make light of real people being harmed, I thought we were all talking about something totally different."

This is why Misha thought it was fine to joke about wincest and it's also why he thought it was fine to say he hadn't thought about it beyond "that's a thing? Yuck." Like he just hasn't given it that much thought. He's allowed to think it's kind of gross and he's allowed to think it's kind of funny, he doesn't need to have some big moral stance on it. It's not that important to him! It doesn't reflect his wider views on society or the media or social justice, to him it is literally just a ship. He gets that ships are important to people but he's not part of the dialogues going on about them. And I for one support him in his apathy! I hope that some day I too might find the same blissful lack of concern.

#fable speaks #wincest for blacklist

[hellzyeahthewebwieldingavenger]

Do you mean the characterization where the character relived all of Peter Parker’s memories at the end of ASM #700 and was trying his best (from his point of view) to be a hero and NOT a villain? It’s almost like an important, life changing/character-changing moment like that happened in between those two scenes. But go figure. :-D

@danslott-blog

I’m writing this because I wouldn’t have space in the original post. This is to be considered a direct reply to the above poster.

You know, I can’t be 100% certain if you are the real Dan Slott or a sycophantic fan of his. Your blog page…

…leads me to believe you are in fact the real Dan Slott. 

Thing is I saw this comment last night but I didn’t check out your blog until this morning. Nevertheless, last night my first instinct was to presume you to be the real Dan Slott.

The fact that my mind immediately jumped to that possibility, the fact that I can’t rule it out and the further supportive evidence of your blog, speaks volumes.

It speaks volumes about the person Dan Slott whether or not you are the genuine article or not. Because your actions so thoroughly fall in line with his behaviour.

And it is damning. As are your words. Let’s unpack them.*

So, did I mean Otto’s characterization? That’s what you were getting at. That my original post was in reference to Otto’s characterization between ASM #700 and Superior #2?

No.

I did not.

At all.

I was referring to Mary Jane’s  characterization. I elaborate upon the topic in this post.

Tl:dr: MJ was eager to sleep with ‘Peter’ in the former issue but not in the latter.

That should have been utterly obvious  to anyone observing the post because I was presenting events from 2 issues and saying they didn’t line up. Obviously  the purpose was for the readers of my post to play spot the difference.

The similarities were Otto’s desire to have sex with Mary Jane. The difference was with MJ.

As of this writing, twelve other people grasped that obvious intent Dan.

Why on Earth do they have superior reading comprehension skills than a professional writer  for the largest comic book company in America? Surely that should be a basic requirement of the job?

Not that I’m surprised. It is exemplary of the vast majority of your pathetic, reductive and damaging  work on this franchise.

But let’s dive deeper.

You claim that Otto reliving Peter’s memories in ASM #700 (after the scene in the OP) changed him hence he was different in Superior #2.

But he’s not.

In ASM #700 he tried to exploit Mary Jane’s misconception that he was Peter Parker (and her pre-existing feelings for him) to have sex with her.

In Superior #2 he was still  trying to exploit Mary Jane’s misconception that he was Peter Parker (and her pre-existing feelings for him) to have sex with her.

So he hasn’t changed. At all.

But for the sake of argument, let’s pretend you are right. In Superior #2 (because he relieved Peter’s memories) he was trying to be a better person from his point of view.

So you are saying from his point of view   raping Mary Jane by deception constituted trying to be a hero and not a villain?**

If Otto experienced Peter’s memories then that would logically entail his upbringing and morality. Meaning Otto would in fact know that what he’s trying to do with MJ is unethical. Or he’d appreciate that he’s not the real Peter Parker and it’d be a disservice to the real man who’s legacy he’s trying to uphold to sleep with the woman he loves. Or he’d know who MJ was and appreciate she deserved better than to be deceived.

But no. He was horny and was going to satisfy himself  no matter what. Hence later in the issue after he experiences Peter’s memories of ‘being’ with MJ he says he’s ready to move on and starts eyeing up other women, including Sajani.

Furthermore, even without Peter’s memories Otto would never have attempted to sleep with Mary Jane for two big reasons.

The first is that she is frankly not his type.

Prior to Superior, the women Otto held affections for (romantically or otherwise) were either scientifically gifted (Mary-Alice, Carolyn), admirers of his brilliance (Stunner, Carolyn, Mary-Alice) or unconditionally kind towards him (Aunt May).

You know…kind of like his own mother was!

MJ is not scientifically gifted. MJ did not admire Otto’s genius. As far as he knew she didn’t even admire Peter’s genius and even the times she has canonically it has been in a different way to the ladies in Otto’s life. MJ was never singing Peter’s praises for being so clever for inventing this or that, she was never borderline fangirling over his intellect. She also wasn’t unconditionally kind like Aunt May was, her kindness manifested in a starkly different way. She wasn’t taking Otto, Peter or a stranger home for a cup of tea or a nice meal.

Since Otto wanted to sleep with her before  he was exposed to all of Peter’s memories, the only rationale reason for his interest was the superficial. She was an attractive young woman and Otto wanted her body.

Which would be weird  right because I seem to recall you and your buddy Christos Gage saying Otto didn’t care about looks in his romantic partners?

This brings me to my second reason.

Otto is evil but he’s not Purple Man/Doctor Light levels of evil. He wouldn’t do something as debase as that, he’d view it as beneath him. In his own warped way he holds a certain respect for women. Hence he genuinely cared for Aunt May, Stunner, Carolyn Trainer, Mary-Alice and of course his mother.

But let’s say I’m wrong. Let’s say Superior #2 was covering totally virgin territory for the character that had never been touched upon before. As in there had never been a word written about Otto’s love life, attitudes to women, attitudes to sex, etc.

That being the case, you established as hard canon that Doctor Octopus, the villain of the pg-13 movie Spider-Man 2, antagonist in dozens of Spider-Man cartoons for children and video games for kids and teens, is an attempted rapist!

As in if MJ hadn’t turned him down all those times his attempts would’ve been successful and he’d just be an actual  rapist.

You took a beloved, fun character (who was unique for having a somewhat humanitarian side to himself) and made him utterly irredeemable. You had him attempt an act of evil that the readers know (within the context of the genre conventions) is one of the, if not the actual, worst things a villain can do.

Good job buddy.

Oh, and needless to say, you totally and utterly failed to take Mary Jane’s point of view into account; as you did in response to my OP.

You never considered how you were using the main female character of the franchise who is beloved  within the fandom and generating cheap, gratuitous tension by threatening to rape her.

In conclusion Dan Slott, you were never ever qualified for the job as Spider-Man’s lead writer. You never ever deserved the role because of how you lied and cheated your way into Marvel, disrespected the works of your predecessors and disrespected the characters you were in charge of.

You had good ideas half the time but your writing craftsmanship skills on the title were woefully lacking hence you could only competently execute them 1/8th of the time. When combined with the raw damage you wrought to the characters and narrative you are without question the single worst on-going writer of Spider-Man in history.

I’m sure you are pleased with that record considering it was blatantly obvious you were far more invested in cultivating an eventual legacy for your self on the character than you were actually serving the characters and organically developing them.

Author of ASM #600, 700 and 800

The only Spider-Man writer to have written 3 centennial issues in a row.

The guy who has written 1 in 5 issues of Amazing Spider-Man.

Oh, and also the worst on-going writer of Spider-Man in history.

Wow.

What an achievement.

Now, why don’t you stop searching for your own name or works online and do something more practical with your time.

Like learning how to write.

*Oh and btw, I’m writing this presuming you are the real Dan Slott.

Also I’m going to try my best not to swear but that is where my politeness ends. This isn’t CBR Dan, Mister Mets (nor any other moderator) is around to censor or ban anyone to protect you.

**And yes, having sex with MJ when she didn’t know he was really Doc Ock is objectively  a form of rape. Here is literally the first sentence  about rape on Wikipedia, with emphasis by me:

“Rape is a type of sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse or other forms of sexual penetration carried out against a person without that person's consent.”

Contrary to what your buddies Fred van Lente or Stephen Wacker might have told you, force is not a requisite.

No consent = rape.

Had MJ had sex with Otto she’d have been giving Peter her consent not Otto. Therefore Otto would have been raping her. This was acknowledged in fact in a Dead pool comic book from 1998!

Courtesy of one of your Brand New Day peers, Joe Kelly, Deadpool v1 #12 saw Wade have sex with Siryn, whom he had feelings for.

However, in the next issue ‘Siryn’ reveals she was actually Typhoid Mary in disguise, a woman who’d endeavored to bring out Wade’s darkside against his wishes.

Wade’s dialogue and body language clearly convey how he feels sickened and violated by the experience. When he asks Mary why  she did this to him she replies it was simply because she could. Whilst Wade is on the ground feeling vulnerable she stands up, leans over and licks him!

The scene when taken in context is brutally unsubtle. Typhoid used trickery to exploit Wade. She put herself in a position of power and abused that power to dominate Wade, to remove his agency.

That is literally all rape boils down to. Not sex but power. The scene, especially the last panel hammers that point home.

But just in case  you still didn’t get it the very next page depicts Wade vomiting and saying he needs a shower.

This is a common reaction from victims of sexual assault, at least in media. The ‘I need a shower’ moment is practically a trope.

Why did a 1998 Deadpool story  have a clearer understanding of the topic being played with than a 2013 Spider-Man story…that was allegedly for children no less!

P.S. You know Tom DeFalco had Peter Parker wrestle with his emotions in the wake of the ‘Death of Jean DeWolff’ story arc way back in ASM #275.

You might say that witnessing such violence and examining his own actions with perspective was a life changing experience for him.

With that in mind, how about you explain to me why Peter experiencing death, deletion, abuse of his life and body, losing a whole year of his life and then returning to it totally changed doesn’t  count as a life/character changing experience?

Because you sure as hell didn’t write him reacting with the pain, the sadness, the anguish that he (or any normal human being) would’ve had after he came back. Nope. Just back to cracking jokes I guess.

Do you like…not know how human beings work?

That’s a rhetorical question because I know the answer.

#Dan Slott #Spider-Man #Superior Spider-Man #otto octavius #Doc Ock #Doctor Octopus #The Superior Spider-Man #mjwatsonedit #Mary Jane Watson Parker #Mary Jane Watson #MJ Watson #Peter Parker #joe kelly #deadpool #Wade Wilson #Typhoid Mary #Siryn #theresa cassidy #X-Men

[swampgallows]

i know people are criticizing the medium article but im gonna say that the weird detectable undercurrent of sexual energy throughout stebebn univernse is 90% of the reason i absolutely could not get into it. i thought i was probably being too hypervigilant or sensitive or whatever but im kind of relieved that someone else said something about it. i mean, i know i AM more sensitive to it because im so staunchly ambivalent-to-repulsed by sexual media, but part of the reason for that is also because i have been so virulently exposed to a deluge of it as a preteen/teenager and throughout my life that i am trained to see where it is slipped in. 

ive borne witness countless times to the exact methodology rule34 creators use to ride the line between fetish and fan art or to infuse sinister messages into childrens media. having been groomed as a child, i am the end product of what happens when people are allowed to unleash these experiments. i see the threads where they groupthink together how to circumvent censors while also, for lack of a better word, dogwhistling their exact intentions in their ‘work’. shit like “she looks 10 but she’s actually 10,000 years old!” is just the tip of the iceberg.

i dont mind cartoons or media that look into exploring difficult or mature themes, especially if they revolve around consent or awkwardness with the subject or ‘not being ready’ or anything like that, and it’s okay (and imperative in fact) that kids be aware of that but 1. the emphasis on the inevitability and pleasure of ‘going through with it’ is terrifying and 2. why do they have to literally be prepubescent and 3. if youre gonna be super mature cool progressive cartoon then be upfront about it and call it what it is, or be more direct, instead of hiding it behind these subtle-but-not allusions that altogether just become more confusing than helpful. and i know this is hard to get past the censors, but im not just referring to sex stuff

i’m not even involved in estebans universario and i still remember the fucking shitload of discourse surrounding lapis??? and jasper, and how people couldnt decide whether or not the relationship was abusive, couldnt decide whether or not the decisions made were correct, who was manipulating who, and shit like that. and to me if your fans, especially adult fans, have zero concrete takeaway from you “tackling” those subjects, then how the fuck are children supposed to interpret it in a helpful way? 

i know irl shit isnt always so cut and dry, but that’s exactly why you see ten bajillion posts on here of people setting very basic standards of things like “IF THEY HIT YOU, LEAVE.” it’s a non-negotiable parameter. as an adult things can get complicated, and relationships always are, but when you have these clearly defined red flags it’s how you avoid situations that deliberately construct themselves in a way to break down your boundaries and control you. whether through sex or emotional manipulation or other avenues of abuse, that’s why you need these messages, especially targeted to children, to be loud and CLEAR

now like i said i never finished the show, i barely got into it and i was not entertained for the near two seasons i watched so im not inviting discussion of shit i havent watched or “well actually this and that happened in the episode so--” im saying that i saw the reception of it and it was completely bonkers ass shit. the response wasnt about whether or not the discussion was appropriate for a kids show; it was that nobody had a clear perception of what the resolution was even supposed to be

i dunno man the huge fucking inundation of porn every which fucking way is a HUGE deterrent for me getting into the art or animation industry. like it has actively repelled me from making art or honing my craft or whatever the fuck because the blatant expectation for me to make porn is so suffocating. if you offer commissions and dont make nsfw and you are an adult, people look at you like you’re crazy. people tell you you’re making a mistake, that it’s a ‘bad business model’ to not accept porn commissions, and that you aren’t a REAL artist if you havent drawn some porn on the side. and i sincerely feel like that isn’t an issue in any other creative field; that youre not a REAL actor if you havent been in at least a couple of porn films; that youre not a REAL musician if you havent scored porn; that you arent a REAL sculptor if you havent made at least one dildo, or some shit like that. i understand that illustration is the most expedited delivery of porn, but i dont want to be part of a community where everybody is glib about paying their bills with porn of kids cartoons and are okay with it and then go on to CREATE kids cartoons where they can give wink wink nudge nudges to their fellow porn artists.

i think this is the exact same fucking thing as ‘fandom’ having issues with ‘purity culture’; that they dont realize (or dont want to admit) that theyre bedfellows with “real” pedophiles and are providing them the shelter and the fuel they need to operate. sure a storyboard artist making some nsfw ‘on the side’ isn’t the same as chris savino or john lasseter or john k’s real tangible sexual misconduct, but it does provide the basis by which everybody who has been wink-wink nudge-nudging enforces the dissolution of boundaries and escalates these people to the top. if you form a coalition of people who all make childrens cartoons while winking (actually we are masturbating to this), you will attract the people who are winking (actually i am doing this). 

having been abused for years by people cut from this cloth im sensitive to this obviously and my thoughts are scattered but ultimately like i dont really think it’s a non-progressive thing to shame people for making porn of kids cartoons. the internet is no longer a secret clubhouse where the hustler mags are hidden in one of the loose bricks. it’s extremely fucking public and i feel like the LEAST these people can do is have a separate alias for this bullshit and to draw distinct lines in the sand for the kind of talent they hire. the problem is, too, that a lot of artists make their living by doing porn or are just drawn toward porn in general. but essentially the clincher is like... sure, go ahead and draw porn but... child porn? a dude makes porn of your teenage cartoon characters and you hire him????

“What kind of culture should industry figures encourage around the kids’ cartoons they work on? And where is the line drawn when artists with backgrounds like ZONE’s — an animator who has worked on Jones-Quartey’s own series — cross over into mainstream children’s entertainment? 

[...]

The public flirtation of children’s media with artists like these doesn’t just risk exposing kids to porn — it normalizes the entire idea of hypersexuality being present in children’s spaces, often in its most extreme forms. [...] It’s a systemic problem that will only grow if it’s left unaddressed.“

it’s a corporate level, systemic problem. i hate the culture and the community that’s allowing this to happen, and i hate that there are slowly becoming fewer and fewer bastions of endearing, safe, quality environments for children to thrive and develop without a thousand subliminal tendrils permeating cute characters and fun stories

#blathering #do not reblog

[androdragynous]

twitter anon here is your reply post, im putting it under a break bc i dont want ppl to reblog it like a discourse post. preventative measure. also bc its a long post

[ link to my tweets for context ]

Anonymous said to canonkiller: June 2nd 2019, 4:05:40 pm · 12 minutes ago yee haw, u asked something about why sharing an ace identity to strangers is necessary? being ace is something not accepted by others 100% of the time, and it is still an oppressed group which is why it’s part of the lgbtq community bla bla, especially when being horny/making sexual jokes can be the norm, and especially when you want to have open convos about attraction and sexuality. that’s. Kinda why.

Anonymous said to canonkiller: June 2nd 2019, 4:06:57 pm · 11 minutes ago I’d also like to add that! Sexual attraction is weird so that maybe you’re not comfortable with some things as an ace person as others are,, and being ace is seen as negative pretty often. It’s nice to say Hey I Exist

im going to try to phrase this in a way that makes sense but my feelings on the whole thing are a lil nebulous so bear with me on that front; none of this is meant to come across as accusatory or hostile, it’s a genuine confusion when present 

i guess where i’m coming from is like. telling strangers that you’re ace is still telling strangers about your sex life, where telling people that you’re gay / lesbian / bi / pan / trans / nb isn’t. nothing about that prior list reveals anything about your sex life, and all of them can be present alongside being ace. whereas ‘ace pride’ is just like... the opposite of a hentai / ahegao shirt or whatever. it’s non-sexual, but in a sexual way, if that makes sense? its like. it’s still information about your sex life that i, as a complete stranger, do not need or want to see.

it also, unintentionally or not, feels like it’s implying everyone else at pride is sexual. as if by specifying, it’s marking the others as others. ‘here are the gay people, here are the lesbians, and here are the ones who aren’t sexual deviants’, kind of. and i know it’s probably unintentional! again, i don’t mean to be like Ace People Are Evil or anything, but it’s just... it feels uncomfortable, as someone who is treated as being inherently sexual for not being straight. and uh not gonna lie but your addition of being horny / making sexual jokes as being the norm for the lgbt community is uhhhhhh not helping with that one, actually, it’s kind of proving it. which is less than ideal.

also - again, genuine, honest question - what is the oppression ace ppl face for being ace? because practically every form of oppression i can think of - being denied housing, jobs, adoption, rights - simply won’t apply in the day to day life of an ace person. from my perspective - which i admit is limited, which is again why i’m asking - the only time you could, for example, be fired for being ace, would be if you routinely brought up that you were ace and your coworkers got uncomfortable about the fact you continued to talk about your sex life or lack thereof. and i don’t think that’s the same as being fired for having a same-gender partner who just exists, because that’s not mentioning your sex life, or transitioning, which also has nothing to do with your sex life.

i... really don’t think that discomfort is tied just to being ace, though? like, a lot of non-ace people are uncomfortable, as an example, kink / bdsm at pride. or horny / sexual jokes (you’ll notice, for example, that i don’t post those despite not identifying as ace). or being uncomfortable with people who make their sex lives or lack thereof a major focus of their identity. there’s no reason for that to be the common ground for ace experience when that’s something... a lot of people don’t like. it’s not like gay people go over to some dude in a hentai shit and start congratulating him. we all think its fucking weird, because that’s being sexual in a place where people aren’t giving consent to seeing it. you know, basic human decency standard.

it’s also... the description of seeing other ace ppl and relating to them is all fine and good, but it’s in the context that like... everyone who doesn’t give you intimate details about their sex life is then automatically not ace. you have no idea! you have no idea about most of the people you see! is a lot of media sexualized? yeah! and a lot of people - ace or not - have a lot of issues with that! it’s not like people who feel sexual attraction are 110% comfortable with some sex scene in a crowded theater, it’s fuckin weird for everyone.

i do also have to bring up my experience w the identity in fandom spaces, which is important, because to me it is PROFOUNDLY uncomfortable when people are like “this child character from this children’s series is asexual and this character is gay!” because it’s like. they’re 12. this is a book series written for twelve year olds. none of them are sexual. pointing out that one character is Very Not Sexual and the other is gay has some aforementioned unfortunate implications about how people view being gay! i have the same concern seeing ace pride flag stamps on a minor’s deviantart profile as i do when i see a fetish stamp there; the simple dread that children are being exposed to sexual content - or being told they are abnormal for not experiencing it when they’re children - and it’s expected to be a point of pride. that concerns me. i fear for kids who are ‘proudly ace’ because, from my experience, the ace people i have met bring up sex far more often than those who aren’t ace or haven’t made it a focal point of their identity. at the end of the day, i don’t want to know about how much or how little anyone, ESPECIALLY A CHILD, wants to have sex! and i think thats a pretty normal thing to not want! 

it’s not anywhere near my business unless they are my partner, in which case we can talk about it, like people in healthy relationships do. and if we break up because we can’t reach a compromise, that’s... normal? like, wanting different things from a relationship is generally why things don’t work out. that’s not ace oppression or anything. thats just normal dating.

my question still doesn’t feel answered! it still feels like it boils down to lgbt people aren’t telling people about their sex lives, ace people are, and i don’t need to know why i need to know the details about ANYONE’S sex life without my consent - which i’m not giving when im looking at pride merch on etsy or people’s profiles on deviantart. especially when the meaning of ‘asexual’ has been diluted to the point where it means ‘someone who isn’t wanting sex 24/7′ which is. how most people are.

#patch me through to palaven command #please dont reblog i dont need the disk horse

[chiibinomonodamon]

Let’s Clear Up Some Misunderstandings about ZackRay, SHALL WE?

Yes, I think we shall......due to all this idiotic discourse going on here.

*Note: I cannot speak for ALL ZackRays but I do believe from my interaction with many of them, they have similar feels. What I’m posting here however? This is coming from my own personal feelings.

1. “Shipping ZackRay means you support pedophilia.”

A: F*CKING NOPE....first of all, let’s get into what “shipping ZackRay” means, for me, okay....

Yes, I ship ZackRay. I referred to it as a Platonic Until Legal Love”. Which seemed to give people the misconception that “it’s waiting for a child to turn 18 so they can consent to sex”.

THAT IS NOT WHAT I MEANT.

Perhaps that was a very poor choice of words. Ugh. So let me explain in more detail:

I feel that Zack’s feelings for Rachael will remain platonic until she grows older and then it is possible for romantic feelings to be slowly realized over time.

Because let’s get one thing straight; I don’t think we can deny:

Issac Foster is not able to recognize what love actually is, even by the end of the series. Nobody has taught him this. He’s not emotionally mature enough to understand it. Yes, I think he feels it towards Ray subconsciously. He feels something. He knows he cares for her in a “I would be glad if you did not die/ I don’t think I can live without you” kind of way. But he hasn’t thought of it outside of that. Therefore, if he is not aware of a romantic attachment, he can’t really act on it, which cancels out (God forbid) any type of sexual feelings he would have towards her. Which cancels out “waiting until she’s legal”. Which I agree, is messed up. Ick. Btw I hate Usagi Drop’s ending. A lot.

So if you’re under the impression that I’m expecting Zack and Ray to suddenly start making out right after the last scene, uh NOPE, I’m not. What I ship...(what a lot of people ship) are those possibilities far....FAR....into the future where Zack eventually understands that Ray is the only person he wants to be with....for the rest of his life. Period. And what exactly is wrong with two consenting adults agreeing to be with each other? That’s right.

NO-THING.

It’s not wrong just because he knew her when she was a young teenager. He was not looking at her in that way. She was simply important to him as a person. And if she were to try to kiss him or something while she was young, his response would likely be “WTF ARE U DOIN”. An appropriate one, yes. XD

I was ALSO referring to my own feelings when talking about PULL. In other words, I don’t really approve of sexual ZackRay content unless she is portrayed as an adult. Mmkay....moving on.

2. “ZackRay shippers look for porn of the ship while Ray is still a child”

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. THAT IS GROSS. NO THANKS, I REJECT.

3. “ZackRay shippers think adults being with kids IRL is okay.”

..........whatisthisIdon’teven.

Hey, is Zack your favorite character? Yeah? THEN YOU MUST THINK SERIAL KILLERS IRL ARE REALLY COOL!!! YOU WANT TO BE ONE, RIGHT? KILLING PEOPLE IS GONNA BE YOUR HOBBY TOO, RIGHT?

..........uh......see how idiotic that sounds? Don’t you just love being accused of that shit? Yeah, it’s really fun, isn’t it?

4. “ZackRay shippers are horrible, spiteful people who attack antis for disliking their ship”

Okay, there is a difference between “disliking a ship” and “opening attacking strangers online”. You don’t like our ship? Fine, I can respect that. Let us go our separate ways and not speak of this matter again.

DON’T.

GO.

LOOKING.

FOR.

FIGHTS.

Don’t call people out on social media posts. Don’t reblog their posts and publicly ridicule them. Don’t reblog their art and insult it. Don’t mention their names, don’t bully them, don’t TRY TO GET OTHERS TO BULLY THEM. This is sick. This is just wrong. I have recently found out that kids under 18 do in fact ship ZackRay. Which means when you attack, stalk, and harass them on tumblr, YOU COULD BE EMOTIONALLY HURTING A CHILD. Ironic for all the antis going “PROTECT TEH CHILDREEEEENZ!” Yes, protect them from your toxic attitude, how about?

5. “ZackRay shippers create content that is harmful because pedos can use it to groom children.”

And the antis seem to be under the delusion that they are SUCH special snowflakes because they were groomed this way; no guess what, ZackRays are also humans (despite what you may think) and have fallen victim to the same shit. Also, news flash, anything can be used as a grooming tool. YES, ANYTHING. And there are WAAAAAAAAAAAAAY more harmful ships out there (THAT ARE CANON) than ZackRay. I’ve been an anime fan for a long ass time. You think I don’t know about all the lolicon kiddie porn? You think I don’t know about Boku No Pico? THAT’S the shit you should be worried about kids and pedos finding. Not that I think fiction is really going to increase child rape crimes. If someone is intent on harming a child, they will. Reading or seeing fanart online isn’t going to influence that. They have a psychological disorder, unnatural addiction, and a lack of morals. These issues are rooted far deeper than just seeing stuff online. Getting rid of that stuff will change literally nothing. The only way a pedophile can change is to get professional help. And schmucks ranting online about how fans shipping is bad is NOT professional help. It’s certainly a professional waste of time.

6. “If shipping ZackRay is a groomed victim’s way of coping with that trauma, that’s unhealthy.”

STOP.

Are you a psychiatrist? Are you an expert in dealing with rape victims? Have you examined this individual you are criticizing?

No?

Then f*ck off. Every person is different. Every story is different. This is a stranger on the internet; who the f*ck are YOU to tell them “that coping method is unhealthy”? You don’t know their life story. You don’t know what works for them. Do you think everyone with anxiety copes with it the exact same way? Depression? Eating disorders? I happen to have an anxiety disorder, myself. Recently a friend of mine informed me that she was also diagnosed with one. I told her my symptoms and I told her what I did when I got an attack.

Guess what?

What she experiences and what I experience are as different as f*cking night and day. I was trying to be a helpful friend but it turns out I was not able to help her at all. I thought I could because I thought I was experienced. But I’m not. It was a real eye-opener.

So don’t generalize people that way. You know nothing about what they went through. Get off your f*cking high horse.

Conclusion: These six misconceptions were the most problematic ones I can think of. Now some Q and A:

Do you draw NSFW ZackRay?

No.

Will you reblog it?

No.

Do you write NSFW fanfics?

No. I’m really not into sexual stuff at all and would be terrible at writing it.

Do you support people who do?

People have the right to draw and write whatever tf they want. Censorship is bad. Just don’t harm anyone IRL. Please.

Where do you draw the line at romantic ZackRay content YOU draw, write, or reblog?

Cuddling, chaste kissing, hand-holding; absolutely nothing worse than what you’d see in a Disney movie. Romance-wise. I got nothing against Zack swearing like a sailor the way he always does. xD

Do you ship ZackRay because of their ages?

*bangs head on wall*

No, I ship them because of who they are as individuals and how they act when they are together.....you know, like a normal person.

Thanks for reading my long-ass rants.

Feel free to PM me, ask more questions, send me hate mail, whatever. I’ll probably just print out your hate mail and use it as toilet paper though...if I didn’t already block your ass. :’D

#satsuriku no tenshi #angels of death #zackray #issac foster #rachael gardner #anti-shipping

[19possums-blog]

On tianshan relationship and their fandom, i guess ?

hello there @nightfayre !! Im the 5asks anon lol (the one abt the last chapter of tianshan). I wanted to thank you for your answer and continue to rant in your askbox but i figured it was so long that mb it would crash ur box lmao, so I... kind of created a blog..... hm. well theres no bad reasons to create an account is there lol ?? (also is there no way to send a long ask ?? why is it so limited :(( )

So once again thank you for anwser, and what an answer ! You raised many points i didnt think about and that was very interesting. I knew i would be glad to hear your thoughts ! the rest under a read more coz i think its going to be looong lol

(( To do a sort of disclaimer : I despise fandom discourse and im more of the mentality “let ppl enjoy what they want as long as it dont hurt real life ppl”, and “dont like dont interact”. So everything im going to say is not an attack against anyone, but just a way of prolonging a manhwa that i like. Most of all, i want to emphasize that at the end of the day, its just a manhwa : it doesnt justify being mean or aggressive towards other real life ppl. If you find yourself raging while reading fandom wank, just stop reading, block, and go outside a little. My way of enjoying the manhwa is to be analytical, to criticize (positively and negatively) and to look at the material source as well as the fandom in itself ; if its (understandably lol) not your definition of fun, this post may not be for you !))

Ur totally right in saying that the hardest thing is separate morality, reality and fiction. I hope my asks didn't come across as a 'u shouldnt like tianshan bc its not morally good'. There is a lot of puritan push back on tumblr lately, and im totally against it. Everyone is free to like/ship what they want ; reading only ‘morally good’ literature wont prevent you to become a nasty person - i would argue itd be the exact opposite, as your spirit wont be trained to think critically or to evaluate a situation (and every situations is always grey) by your own means. Also, its important to separate fantasies/what you like to read and who you are/what you do. To be embarrassingly honest, and like many people, one of my sexual fantasy is rape ; but in my real life, im in a queer anarchist collective that actively fights against rape culture and defends rape victims. That is why i dont have a problem with SheLI/Mo shippers (or even HeCheng/SheLi shippers) even if its not my cup of tea, but i would have a problem if in real life (irl) ppl would say to irl Mo that irl SL is good for him (or if they wouldnt find it wrong that a irl 30yo Cheng is involved wt an irl 15yo Li). I digress.

But then again this confusion about fiction/reality/morality is at the core of the tianshan fandom -and many fandoms. I dont know about you, but i grossly see 3 types of ‘trends’ depending on how ppl interact with the source material  :

1.The ones who think you cant like something while being critical of it. I love 19 days but I think there are flaws in it, beyond tianshan dynamic (like how OX handles the transition between funny and dramatic moments –I think its badly done). It doesn’t mean I personally hate OX and wish harm to their family oc. Worse than this, the ones who, because they dont like certain things in 19 days, feel free to harass OX on their social media.  Here its a confusion between fiction and reality and a lack of critical thinking.

2. the ones that loves Tianshan because they think it fits the trope “Dark, handsome, tortured violent boy who is violent towards fragile, sweet, pure cute boy because he loves him” and the typically associated trope “the pure boy will change the violent boy by the pureness of his heart”. Aka the most common yaoi trope. Again, if it pleases people to see Tianshan like this, good for them and i hope they have a nice time reading 19 days. Lets face it, I love really bad yaoi and books. Its just not how i see tianshan at all, but to each their own. I just have a problem when these ppl insist that its an ok behavior to have in real life and say things like “possessiveness is a proof of love” uncritically (hint : it isnt). For me, its the difference between enjoying fast food (thats okay), and wanting to force everyone to eat fast food and to find it pleasurable (not okay).

3. the ones that think what you like in literature defines who you are, and so in order to be a “good person” you have to only like “morally good litterature” -there are the ones I personally find the more interesting bc they can ask good questions. But alas, in most cases its just puritanism badly disguised and currently they are in all fandoms. Lets not delve into the issue of this statement : what is ‘morally good’ ? who are in the authority to proclaim what is good ? how can you recognize what is ‘morally good’ if you dont see what is ‘morally not good’ ? is it literature’s responsibility to educate its audience ? do literature have to point out “watch out audience what just happened is not okay” as if we were brainless children ? whats more important : what you like reading or what you do irl ? .... Okay i totally delve into this lmao. Here its a confusion between fiction and morality and a rejection of critical thinking : we could say its like when the Catholics prohibited women from reading bc it would pervert them and think of the children).

Returning to the specifics of what we've been talking about  : so in this last case, you (generic ‘you’) think that you are a good person ; so you have to read morally good literature. So in this case, fandom isnt just a harmless hobby, but a proof of how you are morally good, imagine the stakes ! But alas, you happen to like 19 days and most specifically tianshan. You said (@nightfayre​ ) that you judge Tianshan unhealthy as they are now, and i wholeheartedly agree with you, so im not going to discuss why since you already explained it so well. So, what happens when you like a morally not good ship, but you think liking morally dubious things makes you a bad person ? You bent over backwards to explain that, in fact, this ship is morally good, to protect your integrity. And thats why, in 19days fandom since the last chapter (and its the same thing with every chapter where flaws of HT are revealed!), there are many posts going around “hm, in fact, what He Tian did is good ! i know it can seems like hes a violent asshole who dont respect MGS because he punches him, threatens him, and dont listen to him, but hm.... in fact its because he’s nice...” and then they do mental gymnastics to justify what is, obviously, not morally justifiable. And i find its a pity because, my guy, my buddy, nobody is going to throw you tomatoes if you like a morally dubious character, and also bc nothin is morally good ! everybody does what they think is the best in ‘problematic situations’ ! and thats what make life interesting ! and so, 19 days interesting ! The flaws of HT (and MGS) are what drawn ppl to his character, bc it makes him real, its makes him contradictory, we can project ourselves in him, and we can see a complicated character with awesome latent potential. And yes, treating someone like a territory bc you care about them is a flaw lol. (on this subject : i saw ppl saying that its protectiveness and not possession : if you protect someone like you would protect a territory, then its not a healthy protection. you deal with a human whose agency you must respect, contrary to a territory).

MGS and HT are the product of what happen to them in their early childhood and then their adolescence. Like you said, they grow up in a violent, twisted world, where being emotionally distant is the norm. I would even say that they are expected to conform to the standards of (toxic) masculinity : channel all your emotions into anger, caring is being weak and feminine, prove your worth by your physical strength, be in control in all ur relationship, etc. I would say thats why Mo is so hostile towards HT : HT challenges his masculinity, by seducing him (everyone know that the biggest fear of macho men like HT and Mo is being considered gay -_-) and being stronger than him. Lets face it, Mo has kind of a homophobic issue, like all the boys. Between JY who tells HT its disgusting being told hes handsome by a man (at the beginning of the manhwa, i hope by now he had grown out of it), or Mo who tells HT he isnt happy that a guy is on his bed or who desperately wants to prove his heterosexuality by saying he likes all cute girls to his baldy friend... HT is more nuanced, but at the end, when he ‘seduces’ Mo, its always predatory. He doesnt let himself being vulnerable and he aggressively touches Mo even without his consent. For me, its a way of proving his domination, not his interest (and when i say that, i dont mean that HT is not genuinely interested in Mo -just that his actions dont translate this). ZZX is the only one who seems to have a healthy relationship with his masculinity lol, but then hes the healthy one in all aspects (thats why i dont like his character and am not invested in zhanyi, even if irl i would love to be his friend).

With all that being said, oc HT wont know how to adequately express genuine concern and interest in Mo ! This sort of social interactions is not something you just know, its smth you learn. And in HT and Mo’s cases, nobody was there to teach them -we could even say that ppl in their life made them unlearn caring behaviors. So HT does what he does best : he fights and forces, and is surprised when Mo thinks (obviously) HT is evil. And also, like you said, Mo will never be (at least how he is now) a driving force in their relationships bc he will always run away from bonding with ppl. So here we are, HT being the only driving force in their relationship, the same HT who only knows violence. No wonder that their relationship is like this...

As it is, i feel like tianshan is kind of in an impasse right now. One or the other is going to have to evolve if we want to see their relationships changing. Either HT learns how to care without being violent (seems complicated if Mo doesnt challenges him, bc HT isnt going to realize this without feedback since its how he has always functioned), or, more likely, Mo is going to be honest with him and tell him that his behavior is hurting him. Though more probable, I dont see it happening anytime soon : for one, Mo isnt capable of seeing when he is hurting emotionally and what is hurting him ; and also, bc Mo doesnt know any other language than violence, not unlike HT. I think its smth most of the fandom ignore, how violence is smth that HT and MGS both have in common, and how if HT wasnt violent, MGS certainly wouldnt consider him at all.

Anw im excited to see where OX is going with all this ! Like you said, the forced kiss was pivotal to their relationship, so im kind of hoping it would be the same here ! I just hope they wont... do like usual and just put a funny chapter and ignore this latest development.....

OMG i wrote soo much and there is so much i still want to say.... i think im going to do a second post... sorry about the spam lmao

( @nightfayre : i dont know how this site works yet, is @ you alright ? will it show you my post in your notif or should i send an ask ?  bc i want you to see my answer, but i dont want you to feel pressurized to respond or interact or anything !! above all dont feel pressurized, i was sad last night when you wrote ‘im sorry to not answer more quicly’ bc you should answer at your own rhythm or not answer ! your blog is a hobby, not an obligation, so dont feel bad to not do more when yo already do much !! )

#19days #19 days #tianshan

[studyingbymylonesome]

Should minors have a say in their treatment?

In Western medicine, a central component of respecting a person’s ability to make decisions governing what happens to herself is ensuring that she is provided with sufficient relevant information to make a rational choice. For patients who lack the cognitive capacity to do so because of either inborn or acquired deficits or because of youth, the extent to which they can participate in medical decisions is variable. Minors present a unique challenge, as their ability to understand and process information usually increases with age. The case presented here poses special problems because of the parents’ desire to shield their child from certain information deemed important by his physicians. I consider whether minors, particularly older ones, have a right to know that supersedes their parents’ wishes.

Commentary

Our general understanding of informed consent, based upon the conviction that moral agents have an (almost) unfettered right to control what happens to their bodies, demands that for patients to exercise this power they must have adequate relevant information to make choices they deem appropriate [1]. In order to perform this function adequately, persons must have sufficient cognitive function to both understand and appreciate the potential benefits and harms associated with the proposed intervention and to incorporate this knowledge and their values into a decision. The kind and quantity of information provided can vary, but broadly speaking it must be both satisfactory and materially pertinent such that patients can make an informed choice. For children, the capacity to engage in informed decision making is a gradually acquired capability, and different young people exhibit varying degrees of ability to make informed decisions as they age. The acquisition of the intellectual aptitude to engage in acceptable decision making of this sort correlates with the development of those areas of the brain associated with complex reasoning and forethought, a process that is not complete until the early twenties [2, 3]. Older teenagers and young adults appear to have similar abilities in this domain [4].

At least 14 states recognize the idiosyncratic nature of health care decision making by having so-called “mature minor” laws that can empower certain children, with demonstrable evidence of pertinent faculties (e.g., an understanding of their medical condition and the potential benefits and harms of the proposed treatment) to exercise this authority for themselves [5]. Different professionals—for example, judges or social workers, depending upon the jurisdiction—may be authorized to determine whether a child meets the standard to qualify as an autonomous medical decision maker. In those states in which they are mandated by law to ascertain the case-specific ability of the child, the statutes often specify that the patient must simply meet the “informed consent standard” [5]. In the absence of a court-ordered declaration of emancipation or other mechanism to warrant decisional autonomy—and therefore to be entitled to know all clinically pertinent information associated with the recommended treatment—minors must bend to the wishes of their authorized surrogates, usually their parent(s). While adolescents may be arguably unable to appreciate all of the benefits and burdens of a proposed course of action, they certainly have some appreciation, and engaging them in the decision-making process may be beneficial, although the data to support this are scant [6, 7]. Nevertheless, physicians faced with the situation illustrated by this case can be torn between their beliefs that the child has a “right” to know about a probable side effect that could profoundly affect him in his adult life—and that could be mitigated by an anticipatory intervention such as sperm cryopreservation—and the desire of his parents to “protect” him. While the need for initiating treatment may be pressing, as in this case, it is likely that the patient could be offered the opportunity to produce a semen sample if his parents were willing to seriously consider this as an option.

Making Decisions for Children

The sort of problem raised by this case is pervasive throughout the world of surrogate decision making on behalf of patients who lack capacity, either because of age (children) or cognitive dysfunction, such as that associated with dementia, mental illness, and the like. While few would argue against the reasonableness of respecting surrogates’ discretion in withholding potentially distracting, frightening, or distressing information from those whose intellectual impairment or immaturity is profound (for example, people with advanced Alzheimer’s or five-year-old children), the issue becomes more complicated when the patients clearly have the capability to at least partially understand and appreciate what they have been told and hence should be able to participate to a limited extent in the decision-making (i.e., consent) process. It is often stated by surrogates that they wish to spare their charges the anguish or worry that they might experience when faced with potentially (or imagined-to-be) frightening information [8-11], but it is unclear if these concerns are truly warranted (meaning that children may not be harmed by knowledge of the illness). Unfortunately, many encounters of this type take place with specialists who might not know the patient or her parents all that well and hence may be unable to effectively argue against parents’ refusal to permit the child to participate in discussions about medical care. Nevertheless, it is widely understood and accepted that the preferred model for effective and ethically justifiable medical decision making for both adults and children is one that embraces shared responsibility, involving the parents and child (to the extent she can or wishes to be involved) in a two-way conversation, which can be challenging at times given the differences in family dynamics, the emotional tension of the situation, and so on [7, 12, 13].

Of course, if Adam and his parents lived in a state that permitted adolescents judged to be sufficiently mature to make their own health care decisions (either some or all), then this could complicate matters, especially if he and his parents and his physician were at odds about the appropriate content of and mechanism for delivering important information. If his oncologist believed that it was vital for Adam to know about the potential for infertility and his parents remained adamantly opposed to his knowing, andhe met the standards for informed consent (however they might be applied and interpreted in his case and jurisdiction), then he could presumably override his parents’ objections. The potential repercussions of doing so could (at a minimum) erode or even rupture trust in this nascent patient-clinician relationship that could ultimately be fatal.

It is also worth noting that many seemingly irrational decisions made by surrogates and patients can stem from misinformation or simply lack of knowledge when a calm, informed discussion could allay their fears and set to rest misconceptions or misunderstanding [14]. This approach might not always work, however. As the ongoing challenge of parents who refuse to vaccinate their children attests, some people might be immune to this form of rational argument [15, 16]. Moreover, the increasing availability and accessibility of unfiltered and unvetted information obtained from sources on the internet—including websites, blogs, social media networks, and the like—can radically affect the ability of physicians to counter preformed and deeply held beliefs with more reliable and trustworthy data [17-19].

Nevertheless, it is the physician’s ethical (and legal) duty to ensure that the responsible consent-granting parties have all the relevant and true information—to the extent possible—needed to make an informed decision [1]. In this case, this would be the parents; the degree to which Adam would be involved and the power granted him to determine what he knows and what happens would be dependent upon his parents’ discretionary authority or the state, if they live in a state with a mature minor statute. One final detail is worth noting with respect to legally recognized mature minors. Like other authorized decision makers, minors have a legal right to delegate this prerogative to others (such as their family) if they do not wish to take part in all or some of the decisions that might need to be made [1]. Indeed, if personal autonomy is to have true meaning, autonomous individuals (including mature minors) must be able to grant to others the power to make decisions for them as one instance of an informed choice, although this choice might perhaps be better labelled as a form of shared decision making [20].

A recent report by the Committee on Bioethics of the American Academy of Pediatrics discusses the goals of surrogate decision making:

Surrogate decision-making by parents or guardians for pediatric patients should seek to maximize benefits for the child by balancing health care needs with social and emotional needs within the context of overall family goals, religious and cultural beliefs, and values…. Physicians have both a moral obligation and a legal responsibility to question and, if necessary, to contest both the surrogate’s and the patient’s medical decisions if they put the patient at significant risk of serious harm [21].

This guidance acknowledges that, in practice, standards of surrogate decision making, whether they are for adults with diminished capacity or for children, involve a complex integration of best interests, family input, and minimizing risk of harm. This is especially the case for pediatric patients who exist, developmentally and cognitively, on a continuum and whose place and role in their family can be constantly changing with time and situation. Some have suggested that a plausible litmus test for the adequacy of a surrogate decision—the bare minimum for what physicians should respect and accept—is what has been termed the “not unreasonable standard,” based in large part on the kinds of reasons given by the surrogates in support of their choices [22]. Reasons for decisions that could lead to significant harm to the person for whom the decisions are being made must be judged to be sufficiently rational, such that others could not reasonably object [23].

Who is Right in This Case?

Are the parents correct in this case or in others in which parents wish to shield their child from certain information that they believe will be harmful? In my clinical experience caring for children with cancer, it’s not unusual for parents to wish for or ask physicians to refrain from telling the patient her diagnosis. In my and others’ views, this tendency arises from parents’ perhaps mistaken belief that a cancer diagnosis means their child will die and from a belief that their child should be spared the trauma of having the news of a fatal diagnosis revealed [24-26]. In the case, Adam’s parents are, probably, similarly motivated by a desire to protect their child from information they believe could be psychologically damaging. However, if Adam’s parents’ motivation to protect him comes from their belief that he will die, this belief is not based in fact. Indeed, for Ewing sarcoma—Adam’s diagnosis—the five-year event-free survival is up to 73 percent [27]. Generally speaking, pediatric clinicians, others caring for those lacking decision-making capacity, and courts have traditionally given great deference to the expressed will of the surrogates unless there is good reason to believe that their decisions could place the patient at risk of imminent harm [28]. However, the meaning of harm has usually been interpreted as “physical,” especially in cases such as Adam’s [28]. For example, if his parents had refused to give consent for his treatment, it is likely Adam’s physicians would have pursued legal action to compel his therapy, and they likely would have been successful due to the risk of significant, life-altering—and, in Adam’s case, probably life-ending—harm. But it is doubtful they could make a plausibly compelling argument that, based upon his current statements about his wishes to have a large family, Adam might suffer psychological harm of an incalculable degree sometime in the future, such that this harm would be sufficiently credible to override the parents’ authority [29].

There are at least three kinds of potential—and avoidable—related harms that could occur in this case, and while they might be identifiable, their future impact is difficult to quantify. The first is the possibility that Adam would suffer from knowing that he could have had the opportunity to take steps to cryopreserve semen and hence retain a chance (importantly, not a guarantee) to be the biological father of children at some unspecified later time. The second is damage that could be caused by the knowledge that his views and beliefs about what was important to him (the nascent desire to have a number of children as an adult) were ignored or considered insignificant by both his parents and his physician (assuming the latter abided by the demands of the parents to conceal pertinent information from Adam). Finally, Adam will be rendered infertile from physical destruction of spermatogonia due to alkylating agents [30], and, while the biological effects will be anatomic, any negative aftermath will almost undoubtedly be psychological.

Deliberations about this case depend on how we view and attempt to answer two fundamental questions, assuming that Adam does not live in a state where mature minors may be empowered to make their own health care decisions (and that he would be considered capable of doing so). First, is the physician required to obey the wishes of Adam’s parents concerning what happens to their son no matter what? Of course that cannot be true, as I have indicated above. However, distinguishing between permissible deviations from medical advice on behalf of others and impermissible deviations is difficult. Technically, Adam’s parents’ duty within the framework of medical decision making is to act in his best interests—which can be construed as those interests that all children share, such as continued life, and those that may be unique to him, such that only they can define, express, and act upon those interests to protect him from harm. Second, are the putative psychological harms that could occur should Adam not know about his probable infertility and the means to avoid it (sperm-banking) both sufficiently determinable (perhaps as a quantifiable risk) and predictively severe for the physician to attempt to refuse to accept Adam’s parents’ decision? There are good reasons to believe that effective therapy for Adam’s disease will render him infertile. However, future iatrogenic harms that could result from treatments’ toxicity are considerably less determinable and hence hypothetical. While it is true that his physician believes he should know about his future infertility, the subjective assessment of hypothetical information on which this belief is based would seem to weigh in favor of the parents’ authority. It is also likely that the law would defer to Adam’s parents’ discretionary authority to keep information from Adam that would seem to fall within their purview to guide and control many aspects of his life.

Conclusion

While I agree that it would be better if Adam knew about this side effect that could affect his life in profound, yet unknown ways, it seems that in this case Dr. K must defer—albeit reluctantly—to Adam’s parents’ wishes [31]. Nevertheless, it is important that Dr. K convey the reasons why he believes it’s important for Adam to know that the treatment almost certainly causes infertility, although I am pessimistic about his chances of altering the parents’ views (based upon my personal and my colleagues’ clinical experience as well as the lack of consensus on how to alter parental views on childhood vaccinations [32]). The question of whether Adam has a right to know about his condition and the question of how to consider, from a moral point of view, the iatrogenic harms of its treatment are complex ones. Legally, the answer to the question of whether Adam has a right to know is “no.” Due to his status as a minor, he is not legally authorized to consent (although many institutions require assent of minors, especially for research participation [33]), and hence he is not entitled to be informed of the benefits and burdens of the proposed therapy as his surrogates (i.e., his parents) are. And it would be unwise to cast his right—legal or moral—in terms of a multitude of elaborated human rights, only some of which inhere in persons who lack decision-making capacity (such as Adam) [34], as that would potentially distort or even trivialize the moral power that we have accorded rights by amplifying their breadth and scope. We are thus left with a situation that, like so much in health care, is messy and not entirely satisfactory, at least as Adam’s physician might view it. It is conceivable that his parents might later regret their decision to withhold information from him, but that, too, like our projections about potential harm to his psychological state, must remain speculative. The bottom line is that, in this situation, the parents’ wishes must prevail.

As unsettling to her as it undoubtedly would be, this conclusion also addresses the problem of what the student, Jenny, should do. As torn as she might be, an ethical and legal analysis of this case supports that she should not disclose anything further to Adam. That being said, it would also be incumbent upon the attending physician to discuss the troubling features of this situation and the reasons why he decided to defer to the wishes of the parents despite his (and her) misgivings. It is not uncommon that the most disturbing cases present the best opportunities for learning that clinical practice can be decidedly messy.

#ethics #minors

[lipszine]

Black Mamas Matter

Written By Dr. Carol Lynn Curchoe for Lips

The powerful Black Lives Matter movement has brought recognition to the unnecessary use of force on the Black community and extrajudicial murders of countless people. Extrajudicial use of force is not the only way that Black souls are extinguished though. Reproductive and sexual healthcare are in drastic need of an overhaul, for the disproportionate mortality of Black babies and mothers and for the under-treatment of Black infertility.

The United States began tracking infant mortality rate by race in 1850. In over a century since then that gap, instead of shrinking with modern healthcare and sanitation, has actually GROWN.  In 2017, Black newborns had twice the rate of infant mortality compared to the white non-Hispanic population. Black newborn infants die three times as often when taken care of by a white doctor than by a Black doctor. Additionally, Black women are four to five times more likely to die from pregnancy complications than white women. Lastly, married Black women are nearly twice as likely to experience infertility as married white women, but they are treated half as often, and are less likely to achieve pregnancy after in vitro fertilization (IVF), while suffering more severe complications and side effects (like ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome).

In 1850, the reported Black infant-mortality rate was 340 per 1,000; the white rate was 217 per 1,000. Today, in America Black infants are now more than twice as likely to die as white infants. This difference transcends class. A Black woman with an advanced degree is more likely to lose her baby than a white woman with less than an eighth-grade education . In this article we will shed some light on lesser known issues that, to this day, may cause trust issues between the medical community and the Black community. There are many well-known examples of unimaginable trust or consent breaches, such as; the Tuskegee experiments, the story of Henrietta Lacks and HeLa cells, and the Buck vs. Bell decision and sterilization laws that targeted the poor and minorities to name just a few. Those events have been well covered and are beyond the scope of this article to discuss in a way that gives due justice to them.

These disparities (Black infant and maternal mortality, and lack of sexual health and fertility treatments) can start to be unravelled through an historical perspective of the history of gynecological and obstetrical violence and through examination of modern-day implicit biases that are deeply-rooted in society as a result of systemic racism.

The Roots of Structural and Systemic Medical Racism

Scientific racism, sometimes termed biological racism, is the pseudoscientific belief that empirical evidence exists to support or justify racism (racial discrimination), racial inferiority, or racial superiority. We can begin to unravel today’s racial disparity in healthcare by understanding the historical roots of inequity.

In 1851, Dr. Samuel Cartwright published a paper entitled, “Report On The Diseases and Physical Peculiarities Of The Negro race” in The New Orleans Medical and Surgical Journal, a reputable scholarly publication.

The paper’s main thesis was the existence of “drapetomania”, a disease that caused slaves to attempt to flee captivity.  If a slave appeared “sulky and dissatisfied without cause” it was a warning sign of imminent flight. His prescription (let the horror of that sink in…) to stop the disease from fully taking over the slave was, as he writes in his own words, “whipping the devil out of them” as a “preventative measure.” As a remedy for this “disease,” Cartwright made running physically impossible by “prescribing” the removal of both big toes.

He invented a mental illness called “dysaesthesia aethiopica”, which allegedly made Blacks lazy in their work. The treatment of which was “to have the patient well washed with warm water and soap; then, to anoint it all over in oil, and to slap the oil in with a broad leather strap; then to put the patient to some hard kind of work in the sunshine.”

During this same time, a physician named J. Marion Simsdeveloped the surgery to treat fistula, (a hole between the bladder and vagina, or rectum and vagina, that can open as a result of protracted and complicated labor), by performing multiple experimental surgeries on partially clothed, un-anesthetized, and enslaved Black teenage girls.

In his autobiography Sims wrote, "I got three or four more to experiment on, and there was never a time that I could not, at any day, have had a subject for operation. But my operations all failed ... this went on, not for one year, but for two and three, and even four years."

Unlike the careful record keeping (names, ages, identities, etc) of Nazi medical experiment victims during the Holocaust Sims' victims went unnamed, except for three; Anarcha (14-17 years of age), Betsey (age unknown), and Lucy (18 years of age).

Sims became known as the “Father of Gynecology” for his role in developing treatments and devices for gynecology. Today, J. Marion Sims’ actions run egregiously afoul of informed consent in medicine. We consider his actions to be assault and battery. Sims operated on these women without anesthesia partly due to lack of his own training, but because of the cost of providing anesthesia and the commonly held notion (then, as now by the way) that Black women could bear the pain. The surgeries were so gruesome that assisting physicians began refusing to help Sims- i.e. holding the patients down during the surgeries or hearing their cries as they endured repeated operations with no pain management.

Image Credit: Illustration of Dr. J. Marion Sims with Anarcha by Robert Thom. Courtesy of Southern Illinois University School of Medicine, Pearson Museum.

Cartwright’s edifice of scientific racism and Sims’ horrific legacy of treating fistula on slave children (yes, let’s call them children, they were TEENAGERS) with no anesthesia survives to this day.

The Horrifying Legacy of Obstetric and Gynecological Violence

Black women are four to five times more likely to suffer pregnancy related mortality than white women. This statistic is only partially generated from Blacks having a higher risk of pregnancy complications. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) stated that from 2007-2016, cardiomyopathy, thrombotic pulmonary embolism and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy contributed more towards pregnancy-related mortalities in Black women than in white women. However, carefully conducted studies have shown that Black infant and maternal mortality cannot be fully explained by pre-existing medical conditions, OR by income, weight, maternal vitamins, smoking, drinking, or drug use, or anything else- except that is for stress. The chronic, long term, toxic, unmanageable stress of being Black in America, the very inescapable atmosphere of societal and systemic racism that is cultivated here, leads directly to higher rates of infant and maternal death.

In modern times, women in general, but Black women specifically are routinely undertreated for pain. A 2001 study published in the Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics found that many doctors (incorrectly) believe that women have a "natural capacity to endure pain" and possess more coping mechanisms for pain than men, presumably due to having to endure childbirth. In 2016, a study by researchers at the University of Virginia researchers found Blacks receive inadequate treatment for pain, but also inadequate treatment relative to World Health Organization guidelines. Inaccurate and racially biased pain management means that whites are more likely than Blacks to be prescribed strong pain medications for the exact same complaints. Black and Hispanic women are less likely than white women to receive epidural analgesia for labor and Black patients with private insurance have the same rate of epidural analgesia as white patients without any insurance at all .  Black women report being repeatedly and roughly questioned for potential drug seeking or abuse behaviour, while simultaneously being ignored and demeaned as “under” or “over” acting in a maddening “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” chess match to have their pain and symptoms validated and treated.

For example, Black women who present with symptoms of endometriosis are often misdiagnosed with pelvic inflammatory disease (PID)—a condition that is sexually transmitted. A doctor can only make an accurate diagnosis of PID through laparoscopic surgery—a procedure that insurance companies consider elective. The decision to move forward with this surgery lies solely with the doctor’s validation of the patient’s complaints of pain. Research on endometriosis in Black women and other women of color is very limited, which further enables racial and gender based stereotypes to dictate medical diagnoses and decisions. Endometriosis can be debilitating; painful periods, bleeding and pain during ovulation, uncomfortable intercourse, heavy bleeding, and chronic pelvic pain. Its impact on quality of life can be devastating. Not only that but it can lead to infertility, when left untreated, as the symptoms multiply and grow for an average delay of 4-11 years to diagnosis, making infertility harder and harder to treat.

Lastly, we come to the undertreatment of Black infertility. One might assume that fewer Black women receiving treatment for infertility implies there are simply fewer Black women with infertility.

But, this is a hasty conclusion.

It is definitely not that simple.

There are various explanations provided for the mistreatment of infertile people of color (POC). There are often misperceptions of POC being hyper-fertile or being unfit to be mothers . The trope of the “welfare queen” comes to mind as a strong visual, perpetrated by the media. A plump, lobster-eating, Cadillac driving, well dressed, Black or brown hyper-fertile woman, who has child after child to maintain the government handout.

Image Credit: Steve Brodner

Not only do historical racial inequities in medicine lead to inaccurate diagnoses, but there is also societal pressures and shame that result in a Black woman remaining silent about infertility struggles.

It is not simply the societal views on Black infertility that are problematic, it’s the greater need for investment in research and resources and the need to focus on racial disparity in assisted reproduction technology (ART) outcomes. There is a marked, and unacceptable, difference in the outcomes after fertility treatment between populations:

The ART failure rate (no live birth after treatment) is 51.9% (white), 61.8% (Asian), 62.2% (Black) and 55.9% (Hispanic).

ART stillbirths are 16.3% (white), 18.4 (Asian), 25.0% (Black) and 17.8 (Hispanic)

Tubal factor infertility diagnoses are 18.5% white women, 41.7% (non-Hispanic) Black women, 27.3% Hispanic women, and 17.0% Asian or Pacific Islander women.

The reasons these disparities exist include genetics, income, health insurance and maternal stress. However, there is a  lack of outreach regarding accessible educational, counselling, and support resources to minority communities. Resources and education are what enable people to direct their sexual health and infertility care. Racial inequality and social stigma strip people of the power to do so. Historical stereotypes continue to stubbornly prevail and prohibit Black women from receiving the infertility healthcare and resources they require.

A study conducted by Ann V. Bell sheds some light on the subtle inequalities that play a role in treating infertility. Bell interviewed 27 women of low socioeconomic status. 10 participants were Black, 2 were Latina and 1 was Asian. The findings of her research were disturbing and demonstrate how ethnic communities do not have pleasant, welcoming, and helpful doctor visits. For example, one 33 year old Black woman interviewed by Bell recounted her experience after suffering a miscarriage:

“They—they just—they just seem like they just didn’t want me to have any kids (laughs) at all. At all. And that was sad. They, you know, they scared me into even trying to have any more. They tried—they tried to get me not to even have any more […] They was really scaring me. That’s why I—I said, ‘Oh (laughs). Never again, Holy Grace Hospital. Never again’. Because they scared me and it was just—just crazy.”

We interviewed the founder of the Fibroid Pandemic, LaToya Dwight, BBA,MSM,RHU, ChCC, REBC. The Fibroid Pandemic is a support group for women with fibroids (especially for POC, who get little support). When Ms. Dwigh’s white doctor diagnosed her fibroids, they immediately prescribed a hysterectomy (removal of the uterus). Obviously, that is a huge, life changing decision, yet, despite the gravity of it, the treatment plan was handed down cavalierly with no mutual discussion or consent, and no discussion of alternate, fertility preserving options. She changed physicians (to a Black doctor) and discovered that there are other, less-severe options; diet and lifestyle changes and embolization, among others.

Not even fame and wealth can prevent Black women from experiencing these inequalities. Celebrities like Gabrielle Union and Serena Williams have publicly shared their infertility and post-birth near death experiences. Gabrielle Union struggled with heavy periods, pain, and infertility for years, before one doctor took her symptoms seriously and finally, properly diagnosed her adenomyosis. Prior to that, every doctor simply dismissed her concerns and put her on birth control pills. After giving birth, Serena Williams suffered a life-threatening blood clot in her lungs after giving birth to her son. Unfortunately, at first the medical staff did not believe her, but eventually a CT scan proved her right–she had a pulmonary embolism and several small blood clots had traveled to her lungs.

The above mentioned inequalities are appalling alone, however, the picture gets bleaker still for Black newborns. Black newborns are more likely to survive in hospital if taken care by Black doctors. This was unequivocally demonstrated by an analysis of 1.8 million hospital births in Florida between 1992-2015.  In 2017 the CDC data also backs up the fact that Black newborns have twice the rate of infant mortality compared to white non-Hispanics. Neonatal mortality rate is the highest among Black non-Hispanic newborns.  Black newborn lives matter. Black infertility matters. Black mamas matter.

Image Credit: Unknown. We reached out to Black Twitter and could not identify the source of this powerful image. You can reach us at [email protected] to properly attribute this image.

Conclusions

Regardless of whether it is conscious or unconscious racism, the stories presented here establish that reproductive healthcare settings are deadly environments for the Black community.  If there was not even one racist doctor or healthcare practitioner, systemic racism would still exist. The reproductive healthcare system must be re-structured to reduce structural inequalities in diagnosis and treatment of infertility,  and to eradicate systemic, and deadly racism.

About the Author

Dr. Carol Lynn Curchoe, TS (ABB) is a reproductive physiologist. She is the founder of ART Compass, (artcompass.io) a mobile application platform for IVF cycle management, a Fertility Guidance Technology (www.fertilityguidancetechnologies.com). She is the author of The Thin Pink Line (2021), Nova Science publishers.

The Thin Pink Line is a critical examination of health disparities in various aspects of reproduction. We will explore historical perspectives and controversial topics in modern gynecology from birth control to sterilization, to episiotomies and the “husband stitch,” to “educational” pelvic exams, shackling laboring convicts, gender affirming surgery, human embryo research, assisted reproduction and more. This article was written with assistance from Pooja Kasarapu, ART Compass content manager.

Sources:

"Infant Mortality - CDC stacks." 1 Aug. 2019, https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/80304/cdc_80304_DS1.pdf?. Accessed 18 Aug. 2020.

"Physician–patient racial concordance and disparities ... - PNAS." 17 Aug. 2020, https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2020/08/12/1913405117. Accessed 18 Aug. 2020.

"Declining estimates of infertility in the United States: 1982-2002." https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16952500/. Accessed 12 Aug. 2020.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/social-mobility-memos/2016/10/21/6-charts-showing-race-gaps-within-the-american-middle-class/

https://archive.org/stream/storyofmylif00sims#page/n3/mode/2up

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4822534/

"Racial and Ethnic Disparities Continue in Pregnancy ... - CDC." 6 Sep. 2019, https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2019/p0905-racial-ethnic-disparities-pregnancy-deaths.html. Accessed 12 Aug. 2020.

https://anesthesiology.pubs.asahq.org/article.aspx?articleid=1923398

"Infertility around the globe: new thinking on gender ... - PubMed." https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25801630/. Accessed 12 Aug. 2020.

"Maternal Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Neonatal ... - PubMed." https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28486370/. Accessed 12 Aug. 2020.

"Racial and ethnic disparities in assisted ... - PubMed." https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19081561/. Accessed 12 Aug. 2020.

"Racial/ethnic disparities in obstetric outcomes and ... - PubMed." 13 May. 2006, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20060513/. Accessed 13 Aug. 2020.

"Beyond (Financial) Accessibility: Inequalities Within the ...." https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20163560/. Accessed 12 Aug. 2020.

#blacklivesmatter #equality #womeninmedicine #pregnancy #health #gynecological #obstetrics and gynecology #feminsit #womanist #intersectional feminism

[psychvictims]

UN Treaty Questions #FreeBritney:

What United Nations Human Rights Treaties could the Britney Spears conservatorship and rights violations break?

Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Elimination on All Forms of Discrimination Against Women

It looks like there are 4 United Nations treaties which this could go under for the United States, most signed off on inquiry procedure.

((This article is a reposted email on our discussion which is available for anyone to review. Of course, getting it taken seriously and in regards to these violations is another issue - since previously, this was not a mainstream issue despite millions of victims.))

https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/TreatyBodyExternal/Treaty.aspx?CountryID=187&Lang=en

Great link! I know it at least definitely breaks the CRPD, because it always breaks the CRPD.

CRPD - Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities It also breaks: CESCR-OP - Optional protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/cescr.aspx

The Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights The conservatorship (with removed autonomy, control over her money, travel, assets, and work, possibly not able to vote) would harm:

Article 1

1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

2. All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.

3. The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.

Article 6

1. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right to work, which includes the right of everyone to the opportunity to gain his living by work which he freely chooses or accepts, and will take appropriate steps to safeguard this right.

The first articles often seem to repeat in these treaties. It would also go under the

 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

https://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CCPR.aspx

Article 1

1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

2. All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.

Article 2

3. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes:

(a) To ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity;

(b) To ensure that any person claiming such a remedy shall have his right thereto determined by competent judicial, administrative or legislative authorities, or by any other competent authority provided for by the legal system of the State, and to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy;

(c) To ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted.

Article 3

The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to ensure the equal right of men and women to the enjoyment of all civil and political rights set forth in the present Covenant.

Article 7

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.

Article 9

1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law.

4. Anyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings before a court, in order that that court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of his detention and order his release if the detention is not lawful.

((Spears can be held arbitrarily, such as for the 3 months between January and April))

Article 11

No one shall be imprisoned merely on the ground of inability to fulfil a contractual obligation.

((She did not want to take her medications - is this a contract?))

Article 12

1. Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence.

2. Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own.

((Spears is required to have someone with her at all times, and is unable to have full autonomy over her travel, driving a car, using a cell phone, etc))

Article 14

2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall have the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.

3. In the determination of any criminal charge against him, everyone shall be entitled to the following minimum guarantees, in full equality: (a) To be informed promptly and in detail in a language which he understands of the nature and cause of the charge against him;

(b) To have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence and to communicate with counsel of his own choosing;

(c) To be tried without undue delay;

(d) To be tried in his presence, and to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing; to be informed, if he does not have legal assistance, of this right; and to have legal assistance assigned to him, in any case where the interests of justice so require, and without payment by him in any such case if he does not have sufficient means to pay for it;

(e) To examine, or have examined, the witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;

(f) To have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court;

(g) Not to be compelled to testify against himself or to confess guilt.

-- Unfortunately, "mental health or capacity allegation" is not a "criminal offense" or worded here, which it should be.

Supporters discovered that when the conservatorship was started in 2008, Britney was not informed of the hearing or trial. She also could not attend her hearing as she was still in the hospital. She's unable to hire her own attorney.

Article 15

1 . No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time when the criminal offence was committed.

Breaking a window in 2008 could be a criminal offense, but she has ultimately been imposed a greater sentence in the "mental health" system and withheld against her will.

Article 16

Everyone shall have the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 17

1. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation.

2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

-- Is she really being treated as an equal person? I think her diagnoses are preventing her from being recognized as a person.

She's been subject to arbitrary interference of her privacy, family, home, and correspondence and attacks on her reputation by harassing paparazzi, social media, etc. Her children were given custody to Kevin, her ex husband. Correspondence is lack of use of a cell phone and only by permission, or control over social media accounts.

Article 19

1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.

2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.

-- Lack of cell phone use, social media control, accounts of co-workers for music videos saying security prevented her from describing or expressing herself (we have a screenshot of that). Anything she says can be used against her to call her "crazy."

Article 22

1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

-- She's not allowed likely to see one of her Cousins since 2008, or certain people unless first approved by James Spears and her conservators.

Article 23

2. The right of men and women of marriageable age to marry and to found a family shall be recognized

-- Supporters say she is not allowed to marry without permission.

Article 25

Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity, without any of the distinctions mentioned in article 2 and without unreasonable restrictions:

(a) To take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives;

(b) To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors;

(c) To have access, on general terms of equality, to public service in his country.

-- Supporters state she is unable to freely vote, and cannot choose her own lawyers.

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women

https://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CEDAW.aspx

Article 13

States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in other areas of economic and social life in order to ensure, on a basis of equality of men and women, the same rights, in particular:

(a) The right to family benefits;

(b) The right to bank loans, mortgages and other forms of financial credit;

-- Unable to have financial decisions or control.

Article 16

1. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in all matters relating to marriage and family relations and in particular shall ensure, on a basis of equality of men and women: (a) The same right to enter into marriage;

(b) The same right freely to choose a spouse and to enter into marriage only with their free and full consent;

(c) The same rights and responsibilities during marriage and at its dissolution;

(d) The same rights and responsibilities as parents, irrespective of their marital status, in matters relating to their children; in all cases the interests of the children shall be paramount;

(e) The same rights to decide freely and responsibly on the number and spacing of their children and to have access to the information, education and means to enable them to exercise these rights;

(f) The same rights and responsibilities with regard to guardianship, wardship, trusteeship and adoption of children, or similar institutions where these concepts exist in national legislation; in all cases the interests of the children shall be paramount;

(g) The same personal rights as husband and wife, including the right to choose a family name, a profession and an occupation;

(h) The same rights for both spouses in respect of the ownership, acquisition, management, administration, enjoyment and disposition of property, whether free of charge or for a valuable consideration.

-- Has to deal with marriage rights and custody of her children.

I did not review the CRPD because it's typically analyzed. We're interested in showing this in the mainstream human rights circles, and that it goes beyond perceived "disability" as an equal person.

Often UN complaints need consent from the victims or their families.

Supporters initially freed Garth Daniels in Australia from a UN petition, but he was re-held months later.

Usually, people in other countries pay attention to the UN and not often do US residents.

#united nations #free britney #free britney spears #britney spears #UN #human rights #civil rights #protest #rally #equality #equal rights #USA #los angeles #unitednations #freebritney #freebritneyspears #equalrights #britneyspears #losangeles #humanrights #civilrights