#Like the whole concept of sexualizing people without their consent

[autolenaphilia]

The anti-kink moral crusade rests on a lot of transmisogynistic assumptions.

Of course it’s no surprise, since it rests on ideas from the moralizing arguments about bdsm made by radfems in the 70s. The only change is that they are being massively hypocritical and inconsistent about which kinks are bad now, as I pointed out before. Now it’s only certain kinks, like consensual non-consent and fauxcest, that are bad because they “fetishize abuse”, and not bdsm as whole, despite that being inarguably true about bdsm.

And that’s purely to broaden the appeal of such arguments, so that even self-described “leatherfags” can moralize about fauxcest. The morals and principles are frankly just “It’s okay if gay men call their boyfriends “daddy”, because I find that hot, but if a trans lesbian couples pretend to be sisters it’s evil.”

And you can’t really appropriate the radfem arguments about kink without taking their transmisogyny onboard, since they stem from the same transmisogynist bio-determinist root ideology. Janice Raymond in The Transsexual Empire explained trans women through a lens of pathological sadomasochism. Years before Blanchard’s autogynephilia concept, radfems have seen transfemininity and kink as the same thing.

The image of the trans woman painted by radfems then and now, is of privileged males appropriating the pain and suffering of real wombyn, and playacting this suffering for their own perverted sexual amusement. And that is the same image painted of trans women with incest and cnc kinks in modern callout posts. They just remove the explicitly terfy language to make it less obvious. Instead of making a mockery of misogyny in general, we are instead accused of mocking the experiences of the survivors of sexual abuse.

And that boils down to the same thing. Survivors of sexual assault are often as a group assumed to be afab. This ties into a specific transmisogynist discourse. It’s one that argues that afab children are more often sexually assaulted, and that trans women are not targeted by sexual violence pre-transition, and comes to the conclusion that this proves that trans women are male socialized and privileged. This is the fairly nasty transmisogynist undercurrent here.

And it’s proven when in discussions about the transmisogyny of callout culture, a common cliché line in response is that “clearly some people’s worst oppression is being told they are freaks for shipping incest.” This treats transfems as ultra-privileged and transmisogyny as not real at all.

Of course in reality, transfems are disproportionate targets of sexual violence even in childhood and pre-transition. And many survivors of childhood abuse have these problematic abuse-fetishizing kinks, and use it to deal with their trauma, including many of the kinky transfems being called out.

And even if no one involved in the sexual roleplay and fiction being criticized have trauma, the trauma of other non-involved people is not a good argument for its destruction. It’s a reasonable demand to ask for triggering material to be tagged properly so you can avoid it, it’s unreasonable to demand it shouldn’t exist.

Yet transfems are expected to accede to the latter demand. And I think this is because of what May Peterson calls transfeminized debt. It’s how we trans women in feminist circles are expected to be perfect women and perfect feminists to be acknowledged as women at all, instead of as monsters to be destroyed. Of course because nobody is perfect, this leads to every trans woman eventually being thought of as a monster.

We are treated as having to pay off the debt of male socialization/privilege to get basic human rights. And this in practice means conceding every disagreement with TME people, and agreeing to every demand they make of us. Or else we get the hot allostatic load treatment.

And that’s why kinky transfems are expected to fulfil the ridiculous demand from certain puritanical TME people that “I’m not involved in your kink, but I have trauma relating to it, so you can’t do it.” And are treated as evil monsters for not fulfilling it. It’s clearly transfeminized debt and transmisogyny, we are treated as privileged perverted monsters, inherently exempt from sexual violence. And that is used to justify sexual harassment, in the form of callout posts for our sex lives.

#transmisogyny #my writings #callout culture #purity culture

[the-delta-quadrant]

the more i think about it, the more i feel like the ace community's disdain for aces without romantic orientations is kind of a defense mechanism against people saying that asexuality is not a valid sexual orientation but rather a lack thereof; that asexuals have a void where our sexual orientation should be

and it's an idea that aces are assigned without our consent. the vast majority of us do consider asexuality our sexual orientation, though i wouldn't be surprised if there are aces who define their asexuality as not having a sexual orientation

but because this idea of lacking sexual orientation is forced on aces as a whole, it seems that some aces get really fucking defensive when it comes to other aces not using the concept of romantic orientation, as to them, it sort of mirrors what it's done to them without consent

except we do consent

we voluntarily disidentify with this

we chose not to label it

and most importantly are we not saying that no aces can have a romantic orientation. we are speaking for ourselves and i've never met an ace without a romantic orientation who isn't actually deeply supportive of aces labelling their romantic orientation

but romantic (or sexual orientation for that matter) aren't must-haves, and i don't need other aces to force romantic orientation onto me to spite amisics in their idea that a- isn't an orientation

#queer #mogai #lgbt #lgbtq+ #gsrm #lgbt+ #asexual #ace #asexuality #acespec #quoiromantic #quoiro #wtfromantic #wtfro

[conceptsformyowner]

Am I Doing Bad Or Am I Just Not Posting That Much?

i want to give an important update, since I think the psrt of myself that I've been putting into words in this blog has become a very specific fragment of my being

I am currently the happiest and most fulfilled I've been in my whole life

I have become a kinky queer community organizer and I help organize several local events every month. I walk people through their first steps into the BDSM world and into the local scene. I am writing guides about BDSM, consent, and queerness in spanish for my local community, where not everyone can understand english. I run a website where we upload lots of kinky educational material, host a list of kinky queer friendly businesses and professionals, display a calendar of the communities local events, and maintain an ever-growing glossary of terms about BDSM, queerness, sexuality and non-monogamy. I'm a part of a polycule of wonderful amazing people where we're all supporting each other constantly, which is very necessary because my country is going through a very very bad time. I am living on my own for the first time, I have a programming job which lets me do all these other things without having to take a cent from anyone. I have the healthiest relationships I've ever had and don't feel controlled or conflicted or co-dependent. I have a committee of partners and friends who help me stay in line with my self-collaring dynamic. I am my community's captive toy. I have partners who can't stand being in my presence and not making sure that I am constantly securely restrained.

I've never felt this fulfilled. I have a plan for my life for the first time in many years. I have stability.

I still struggle with executive dysfunction and a myriad other things, and sometimes feel unfulfilled kink-wise. That's usually when I come and write here. That's why it might seem like I'm not doing ok, because that's what I've been coming here for, because all my energy has been going towards spanish-speaking education.

I still want to come back and write actual concepts, because I don't want this to be a """negative""" blog, but thank you all for being with me when I'm not feeling great, when even in my best time I still ofc have bad or really bad moments.

thank you ✨

#text #real

[commandermahariel]

doc from swtor is arospec. here's why.

disclaimer: obviously this is a headcanon. i consider it based on canonical stuff, but there has been no in-game or in-lore mentions of doc's romantic or sexual orientation. i'm also basing this on my experience as an aromantic person, which may not be the same as your experience as an aromantic person. it's also perfectly fine to disagree as long as you're not a fucking dickhead in my notes.

now to the actual reasoning.

he does not get into serious relationships until he meets the knight. there's that story with the twi'lek woman and him abandoning her at their wedding, but we don't really know how that happened. this does not make him less of a dick for doing that, to be clear -- in the context provided by the game there isn't any evidence to support he was justified in doing that. at the same time though, there is very little we know about the whole situation. was he pressured into it by his or his fiancee's relatives? did he not want to be in a relationship, but agreed to it to not hurt her feelings and didn't have the guts to end it until it was too late? was his fiancee just unhinged and organized a wedding without getting the groom-to-be's consent? is doc just an idiot with commitment issues? we don't know. i mean, we do know that he is an idiot (affectionately) with commitment issues, but whether that was the reason for the failed wedding is unknown. i'm kinda derailing, but the point is, the only serious relationship we know of was a disaster and it's not even known how it came to be like that. his romance dialogue also suggests this is the case, from him thinking he's going crazy for actually falling in love with someone, to saying stuff like "normally, i'd kiss you for talking like that. but i'm trying to do this right", which is, again, not definite proof, but substantial evidence for me.

also based on his dialogue, he finds the concept of non-casual relationships weird. "...wookies mate for life. that's not normal!". of course this can just be him being the whore he is, but i don't think your average "sleeps around with everyone" character would find the concept of marriage for life abnormal. not fit for them, sure, but not an insane thing either.

his opinion clearly changes when he is in a relationship with the knight though. he goes from being the guy who thinks marrying for life is insane to being the only romance option in the game to have an on-screen marriage ceremony and even referencing the wookie thing in a positive context this time: "i want us to be together. like the wookies". he also stays completely faithful despite what some people in this fandom try to claim. you know who you are which is admittedly an incredibly low bar to have but it's not like it's completely unprecedented in bioware games sealene please stop the salt and he is still just as madly in love with her as he was seven years ago.

considering his bafflement with what (i assume) is a normal human romantic experience and literally thinking he's going insane for falling in love with someone, i think it's safe to say he could very well be demiromantic. i don't identify as demi myself, so please correct me if i misrepresent the experience, but the definition for demiros is "describes people who do not experience romantic attraction until they have formed a deep emotional connection with someone" which checks out, it takes him about a year and a half (according to the "1 chapter = 1 year "thing) to get to the point where he realizes he has feelings for the knight. checks out.

so yeah. diversity win! the womanizer guy is queer.

#swtor #archiban kimble #swtor doc #'sealene what the fuck' let me be normal in peace ok

[quinloki]

serious question for you and other fanfic authors, is it bothersome to like, binge leave comments of an authors work? like does seeing the same name comment the same type of thing on fics ever annoy you? I have authors I am obsessed with but I don't want to seem creepy or annoying

With very rare exceptions (and everything has exceptions so don't fret overmuch), artists love feedback. And when I say feedback, I don't mean critique - there's a time and place for that and that's never after something has been posted/shared. (the one caveat being if it's explicitly requested by the artist.)

When I say feedback I mean, if you liked it, say something.

It's okay to not like something you've read/seen/watched, but in those cases just don't share it, don't like it, and don't recommend it - if it really bothers you, block the source and move on. Leaving a negative comment could cause unintended consequences, so I would personally recommend avoiding them.

But if you liked it - whatever shape that took - leaving a comment is a wonderful thing. Sharing it is too! You don't even have to say anything if you don't know what to say.

BUT! To get to your specific concern - "seeing the same comment, the same type of things on fics, ever annoy you?"

If you see something and see comments are left and those comments are what YOU would also want to comment, then comment. You can even say "I know everyone else has this but," and then say your piece.

I love stuff like that personally. I love having created something that provokes a steady reaction across all sorts of people. It means, intentionally or not, I managed to nail a concept/emotion/response, and I can learn from that. (Or just bask in the chaos and enjoy my hard work XD )

If you feel like you're leaving the same comment on everything you read this, that's okay too \o/ Sometimes I don't know what to say, the details elude me, and there's nothing wrong with "I really enjoyed this, thank you" and leaving it at that.

I, personally, love the whole gamut - from the Play by Play where someone leaves a comment like they were taking notes and just highlighting all their favorite parts, to the Complete Feral Gremlin which is nearly incomprehensible except that they derived some deep emotion from what they read.

I will admit, there is one kind of comment that can be creepy, and I cannot think of any artist I know, be they pictures or words or otherwise, that enjoys it.

The comment that is sexual toward the author.

Look, for me, you can admit you needed a cold shower after reading something I wrote. You can even admit you had to go get your rocks off because it was so good. That can be a bit TMI for some peeps, so I wouldn't start there with a new author XD

But hitting on or propositioning a creator just because they do saucy content, is flat out creepy.

I've had people come to me with specific questions about kink and bdsm and I've stated I'm okay with it, and I've provided feedback in the ways they've wanted. I've had people come to me wanting advice on writing smut, and I don't mind giving that.

But woe unto the troglodyte who wanders into my sphere trying to hump my leg without my consent.

And speaking of consent, you can always ask a specific author before you leave a comment. There's nothing wrong with poking someone and saying "Are you okay with feral comments, or should I tone it down a little?" If you're concerned about it, an inquiry (like this!) never hurts.

But I tell you, I get one comment over and over on my Quicksand story that gives me Such Life.

"I wasn't a fan of Crocodile until I read this."

Ah, that's the good stuff.

#quin answers #anon asks #quin maybe gloats a little #ahem. #It's a good question though! #I hope it answered your concern #if you need/want clarification don't hesitate to ask =3

[rollercoasterwords]

Out of interest and in relation to your post about porn addiction, would you say you are for or against porn / the porn industry as a whole? I always really enjoy reading your arguments and opinions on here so I thought I’d ask. (that is as long as you don’t mind answering.)

i think framing any conversation about porn as being "for or against porn/the porn industry as a whole" is a nonstarter. "the porn industry" is not a monolithic entity; it could encompass anything from revenge porn uploaded without consent on giant sites like pornhub to a camgirl recording videos in her apartment and uploading them on onlyfans.

in general, i try to approach any critique about porn the same way i would approach a critique on any other site of labor. as in, i certainly have concerns about the shape that labor takes under the constraints of global capitalism, but i don't think it's helpful to treat sex work and the creation of porn as inherently more exploitative than any other job/industry just because sex is involved; most of the issues that people point to with exploitation are, the way i see it, not a result of some ontological exploitative quality inherent to sex work but rather a result of broader social + economic conditions surrounding that work. i don't think the elimination of all pornography is a realistic or even necessarily a noble goal, and i think the material action that anti-porn campaigners typically take often directly harms sex workers; if we're actually concerned with sex workers' safety, then we should listen to what they're saying about what would make their work safer. porn and sex work as abstract concepts are morally neutral to me; i don't think there's anything wrong or dirty or bad about experiencing sexual arousal and getting off, and i don't even think sexualizing and/or objectifying someone is inherently evil as long as it's contextually appropriate. nor do i think it's inherently debasing or demeaning to participate in sex work! and i think it's much more harmful to perpetuate the idea that anyone who gets off to any form of porn is a sick evil weirdo--which is, again, a sentiment that many anti-porn campaigners seem to base their politics around.

i would highly, highly recommend the book 'playing the whore: the work of sex work' by melissa gira grant to anyone interested in this subject; it's definitely a topic on which my perspective has shifted considerably over the past few years!

#ranting and raving #ask #book recs

[aro-bird]

While I'm here, it's also important to note that there's a difference between sex and romance repulsion from sex and romance negativity since I see so much confusion with those terms.

An individual who is sex or romance repulsed is someone who doesn't personally like or doesn't feel comfortable with participating or viewing acts that is sexual/romantic in nature because of personal repulsion.

Sex or romance negativity is a moral position wherein the sex/romance negative person believes that people who participate or view romantic or sexual activities even if it doesn't affect them in any way, shape, or form is morally wrong. In sex negativity, this could range from those who shame others for enjoying pornographic content to participating in kink, regardless if the involved parties are all consenting adults. For romance negativity, it's the shaming of others for engaging in romantic relationships or enjoying romantic media and could even lead to the pure demonization of love and romance as a whole instead of accepting these things simply as neutral concepts.

If someone's sex or romance repulsed, it doesn't automatically mean that they are sex or romance negative.

On the other end of this, romance or sex favorable is different from romance or sex positive.

An individual who is romance or sex favorable may personally be fine with participating or viewing romantic or sexual actions and may even desire these actions for their own reasons.

Someone who is romance or sex positive is an individual who is supportive with the freedom of any individual to engage in any sexual or romantic activity without shaming them for any moral failing.

An individual who is sex-repulsed can definitely be someone who is sex-positive, so is the romance-repulsed be romance-positive.

#mayaposts #romance repulsed #sex repulsed #romance negative #sex negative #romance favorable #sex favorable #romance positive #sex positive

[dahliadear]

Tbh I think the twins being Aemond's work too, esp knowing the future repercussions that this brings up (like fighting Daemon as revenge for Jaehaerys). Most people neglect the other side of the equation being Helaena, a child bride who gave birth at a young age too. It's weird to see that most argue in behalf of Aemond while ignoring Helaena who is just a year older than he is. Really, why is Helaena and her age always ignored in these conversations? We also already know Aemond was SA'd or forced to have sexual relations at a young age, so I don't think anyone should be splitting hairs at the morality of him being with Helaena around the same time. I prefer the idea that both of them found agency with each other. It also doesn't really matter bec age seems to be of relative importance to the showrunner and writers in this series.

You make good points. Do I, personally, ship/want to ship children? Definitely not. But as a survivor of CSA, shit happens. Sometimes, as a young person, you *do* find agency with another young person. Unfortunately, I think people ignore Helaena's age because in Fantasy Medieval Times, people use the tired "if she's old enough to bleed, she's old enough to breed" bullshit that has RARELY ever flown in the real world. I could go on a rant about how few times marriages were actually consummated before the bride was of age. Some political marriages happened at a young age, yes, but the couple were kept seperate until they were both older. There's a whole list going around of how old English Kings' mothers were when they were born. In the 19th century, in some places women marrying without their parents knowledge or consent had to sign an affidavit saying they were over TWENTY-ONE. But for some reason, people use fantasy as an excuse to plead "well SOMEONE did it... Well in SOME cultures it's okay..." So if men can abuse fictional girls with their fucked up fantasies, I think the scope of the Lense of Scrutiny should be a bit narrower. I am guilty of glossing over the canon age of female characters because it's already written and there's nothing I can do about it. There's also a lot of debate online about whether fiction should be used to gauge the writer's morality. Are we, as creators and consumers, guilty of the fantasy? Can we not use the act of creation as an exploratory outlet, or must we only produce thematically poignant material that upholds and spreads certain principles? Is anyone truly hurt by the fiction itself, or is it by readers who abuse the text?

Anyway. If I had taken the time to think about how Aemond would have been 13 at the time of their conception, would I have accepted that headcanon? Probably not. I just thought "what if those kids were his" in general and it kind of stuck.

Game of Thrones in general is pretty fucked up. Is it illegal to picture something a little fucked up in a different way, making characters happy? No! Does this sort of thing happen in real life? Yep! Does it make the story even more dramatic and twisted and emotional and compelling? Absolutely. Headcanon to your heart's content.

#helaemond

[audhdnight]

Okay friends gather round because I’m here to talk about porn (this will be a long post).

Specifically, why it needs to be safer instead of banned, why it’s not inherently harmful, and how a lot of the harm associated with it is straight up prejudice.

I recently got drawn into an argument about this (i know, I should know better, but I guess this time I didn’t). People love to talk about how the porn industry is harmful because it’s “addictive” which makes it dangerous, or because it makes men do bad things.

I want to say first that this is just feeding into the “all men are inherently bad and violent” shit which I do NOT support because it is not true. A lot of men in patriarchal society are violent, yes, but only because that society tells those men they can have whatever they want, they can take it if we won’t give it to them, and there are no consequences for this behavior. This apathy is conditioned. If you never hold a man accountable for his actions and the ways in which he exploits others, OF COURSE he’s going to hurt people. This issue exist less with women because societally, women are conditioned to give of themselves to the point of burnout, to always place other people’s (most often specifically men’s) wants and needs and preferences over their own. Not because women are biologically less violent or selfish.

Now, there is something to be said about the ways in which certain kinds of pornography portray sexual relationships. In heterosexual male-centered porn, the woman is, more often than not, merely a vessel for his pleasure. She does what he wants, in the positions he wants, because he is the focus. This kind of porn is often characterized by a POV that makes it look as if you’re watching through the male actor’s eyes.

This kind of porn, especially if it is a man or boy’s introduction to sexual relationships/pleasure, can encourage them to see all women this way. If you teach a boy that women are meant to serve his whims because that’s just what women are for, of course he’s going to continue seeking out this kind of media. This is an example of societal prejudice and how it influences everything we do. It does not mean that pornography makes men misogynists.

The second point I want to discuss involves why I say we need reform and laws that keep people safe from exploitation, not a ban on pornography as a whole.

When I told the people I was arguing with that this is what I personally advocate for, they tried to say that I was admitting porn is bad, “because it hurts people.” One man said that I couldn’t possibly dismiss the experiences of real people hurt by the porn industry by saying porn isn’t harmful.

I want to make it exceptionally clear that I am absolutely not dismissing anyone’s experiences. I am well aware that many people are hurt by the modern pornography industry and have been for as long as sex work has existed. But I also want to make it clear that this is not because sex work is bad. It is because people get trafficked, and people often feel like they have no other options because of economic and life circumstances. Some people who entered the industry willingly, who even enjoy their work (crazy concept, I know) end up leaving because they were pressured into certain acts that they weren’t comfortable with. Some people get recorded without their consent. Some people have to leave because of harassment (and yes, sexual harassment IS a thing, even for sex workers). Some people feel like it is a path they will enjoy, but discover it’s not a kind of work they want to do. Some people find it incredibly draining. Some people’s coworkers make for an unpleasant or even unsafe work environment.

There are hundred of reasons someone might leave sex work or be harmed by the people they work with. This doesn’t mean that the work itself is morally wrong. Which is why I say that we need laws in place that protect sex workers from exploitation, and we need people in place to actually enforce those laws (rather than the slew of pedophiles and rapists we have in office right now, or the police officers who let traffickers off the hook for bribery - the financial kind and the human kind).

My third point involves the lack of any scientific backing for the claims that pornography is inherently harmful. While anecdotal evidence absolutely has a place in the discussion, and we should never dismiss someone who was hurt in their time in the industry, this is not scientific. Neither are sermons, unfortunately for most of the people I talk to about this. Usually when I ask for a study backing their claims - just one single peer reviewed study - I am offered this:

The very first thing I want to point out about this paper is that it is not a study. It is essentially a personal interest essay. Just because a work references other works does not make it credible. The man who wrote this paper is a religious fanatic, first of all, and while his Phd does actually appear to be real (oftentimes I get referenced to people with fake doctorates) that does not automatically make any words he writes factual. Several of the footnotes include links that look pretty legit but actually lead nowhere. A couple are just surveys where they asked religious families if their children struggled with mental health consequences from pornography, which is again anecdotal evidence at best, and definitely not a peer reviewed, credible source.

Secondly, if you read this paper you may notice that in a few places Fagan claims part of the mental toll pornography takes on teens is the shame and guilt it creates. Gee, can anyone guess why a sexually repressed teenager in a conservative Christian purity culture home might feel ashamed of indulging in sexual pleasure?? My personal “porn addiction” guilt went away when I realized that I wasn’t hurting anyone by watching it, and my sexual pleasure was not sinful or dirty. What fixed my mental turmoil was letting go of the shame, not letting go of the thing that made me happy.

All of this is to say that the shame and guilt around teens watching porn does not come from the pornography itself, but from the adults around us who tell us we are dirty rotten sinners who are going to burn in hell for wanting to feel good.

Fagan also talks about the consequences of pornography on children, without ever addressing the fact that this is harmful because usually if a child is viewing porn, it is in the context of grooming. I’m not advocating for showing your young child pornography obviously (please don’t do that) but it feels incredibly irresponsible to say that we need to ban porn because “if a child is groomed with it that hurts the child”. In his list of reasons why pornography is harmful to children, Fagan also includes things like it can be upsetting for a child to overhear their parent engaging in “phone sex”. Surely I’m not the only one wondering what that actually has to do with porn��?

Now, I’m not saying that no one is ever engaging with pornography to a point of harm. But this is still an issue of misattributed blame. If someone is watching porn in excess, using it as a coping mechanism of some kind, that is a problem that has very little to do with the porn they’re watching. People fill holes of emotional and physical needs in all sorts of different ways. My cousin ended up on crutches because she went through a rough breakup and dealt with it by running. She overdid it too many times and injured herself, but no one would ever say that means we have to ban running.

My main point is that safe, consensual sex work is not harmful. If consenting adults wish to have sex, play sexual games, record themselves, watch a recording of another consenting adult, or do literally any other kind of sexual activity - that is perfectly okay. We don’t need to shame them or condemn them for wanting to feel pleasure or for working a job in which they bring other people pleasure. This is purity culture bullshit.

And on the subject of teens - it is literally the most natural thing in the word for a teenager to feel curious about their bodies and desires and to want to explore that. Again, I’m not advocating for showing your teenager pornography, but If they find it themselves that’s a wonderful opportunity to have discussions with them about safe sex, boundaries, consent, and all the things. You can even talk to them about it before they seek out the porn. You can teach them about masturbation, and let them know that these desires are not shameful or bad or dirty.

I’m also really tired of certain people insisting that porn is “addictive” because it produces dopamine in the brain. Wanting to feel good is not a crime for fuck’s sake.

#as you can tell #i have a lot of thoughts #I’m very passionate about this #maybe I’ll write a book someday #one that references real studies lmao #cw sex work #sex is beautiful #sex work is real work #sex workers are people #long post #text post

[magnoliamyrrh]

something hysterical abt how im seeing this new trend of blaming online radfems who bitch abt men for the misogyny of boys lmaooooo. common now, youre fucking kidding me. boys arent getting worse because they stumbled across the blog of a woman talking shit abt her opressors. theyre getting worse because theyre watching porn by 8 frequently sharing it among each other and this is leading to younger and younger boys raping girls; like, we have 10 year old boys raping their younger sisters after watching porn. this boy children raping after porn thing is a international phenomenon. they're misogynistic because theyve seen it in adults their whole lives and its been encouraged in them too. theyre sexist because children are smart and like spunges, they absord whatever is around them. they are sexist because theyve been watching sexist af youtubers and personalities and shows and movies and family members. theyre sexist because society has already drilled a sense of superioirty and entitlement into them, and when they come across feminism it doesnt vibe with that. the idea that boys are some sort of uwu innocent beings and the Evil Tumblr Radfems are turning them into sexists is so funny. bro when i was literally in Preschool boys were being sexually perverse, theyd grab at our underwear and clothes and try to break into our bathrooms 24/7, we couldn't even piss without two other girls holding the bathroom door while the rest of us went. they'd try to kiss us without consent. and Adults just thought this shit was funny or unimportant or whatever and let boys be boys and never taugbt them boundaries. by early elementary theyd share porn among themselves and say the grossest fucking things to us and the sexual harassment just got worse; one of the guys in our class was kicked out (after years of harassment) when we were like 10 bc it got so bad.

this was in the early 2000s. no evil radfem internet megamind was making boys wack, they just were because theyre being raised as members of the opressive class. and again, this was 2000s, its only gotten worse. and yup women are allowed to say they hate men online because members of the opressed class are indeed allowed to express emotion, misandry isnt a real damn issue more than racism against white people is and its absolutely pathetic that so many on here thing MiSaNdRy is a real issue because liberal "feminism" is all abt mens uwu hurt feelings and coddeling ur opressors. and you know. why is it that with This we must act like we cant post shit online because hypothetically children will see - but with everything else its fine. like yea i wouldnt talk to a 10 year old boy abt feminism like i would on here but guess what. also wouldnt talk to children about sexual slavery like i do on here. im not gonna stop posting abt either because of that - adults have a responsability when it comes to childrens fandoms and whatever; dont mean we have to censor every damn thing

Oh and also. lets be clear this concept that boys are turning wack because of a few angry online women (who libfems hate anyway because ohh noo how dare you ever be mad or angry at men) is just hysterical because. girls live with the psychological impacts of men and larger society irl hating them and seeing them as less human and molesting them and murdering them and committing a genocide agains them 24/7. and yet. somehow girls dont become insane sexists who want to rape and enslave boys and men nor do they actually do so

#whatever happens the evil bitch women are always somehow at fault lmao #come fucking on

[obstinaterixatrix]

(semi?) local politics, sexual assault ment

so the state introduced a thing that’s really popular about banning people in the process of being charged for sexual assault or who are already on the sex offender registry from schools, and it’s been getting a lot of support because it *sounds* good but in actuality will one hundred percent be used to reinforce the school to prison pipeline, and a human rights org is sending email campaigns with stuff like ‘care not cages! keep kids in school!’ without actually explaining the whole concept and it’s kind of pissing me off because the dinky little email campaign/petition doesn’t ACTUALLY clarify that this has to do with sexual assault, which *I* think is absolutely necessary context because if you lead with ‘we’re protecting kids!’ people would mindlessly support that, and if they follow up and find out the context ‘this is about sexual assault’ they might mindlessly support that, but if you give the FULL CONTEXT of ‘this proposition looks good on the surface because it presents as protecting past and potential victims of sexual assault by preventing fellow students with sexual assault investigations from attending school, but 1) these laws practically always disproportionately affect people of color, 2) the sex offender registry is a flawed system which, last I checked, still includes people from when being gay was a crime, 3) if a student is an offender, this actually locks them into the school to prison pipeline by practically ensuring they won’t be able to finish school, thus removing opportunities and adding barriers, thus increasing the likelihood of trapping the student in the prison industrial complex at an early age, 4) I’d have to dig it up but I’m pretty sure BYSTANDER INTERVENTION TRAINING and having COMPREHENSIVE SEX ED, including relational health and consent, does a better job of reducing rates of rape/assault, 5) I think there are better ways of protecting the victims of sexual assault that doesn’t perpetuate violent state institution, like it doesn’t seem very restorative justice and it doesn’t have any room for the victim’s input (which makes sense since it’s about state law) but I’d imagine requiring the transfer to a different school, while disruptive, would be a better alternative to banning a student who is an offender from school altogether (although I’d imagine it depends on severity of offense) (BUT LIKE, AGAIN, in cases of sexual assault it is most common that the victim and offender have a prior relationship, so there isn’t really protection to future victims by removing the student from schools, and I didn’t see any avenue for rehabilitation) anyway all this to say I know the campaign is trying to avoid the bad faith framing of ‘we are advocating for rapists to be in school’ but I think they need to be able to equip(/educate) on the legitimate arguments for why police/prison based intervention is overall detrimental (especially since the advocates have an extremely easy argument of ‘we’re keeping rapists out of schools’) (we need to BRING the nuance, not try to gloss over it)

#my ramblings

[mask131]

The Zeus Case: Why such a messy love life? (1)

Short answer: Because people are parrots who repeat blindly everything they hear without doing their research. :)

Long answer: get ready for a class.

So I expressed several times my strong dislike of TV Tropes’ descriptions of the Greek gods, and they notably use to describe Zeus one quotation from the Youtube channel known as “Overtly Sarcastic Productions”. This is the quote:

From a modern perspective, when we look back at the original tellings, it’s very difficult to see Zeus doing his thing and conclude anything other than that the king of the gods is an omnipotent serial rapist who leaves a trail of shattered lives and bastard children in his wake and this pantheon is a fucking nightmare.

This quote is a perfect summary of how modern Internet perceives Greek mythology... and this point of view is wrong. I am sorry to say that, but it is wrong. I do enjoy the OSP videos, I do follow faithfully their Journey to the West videos and the like - but they also simplify some stuff to fit a small-video format and, of course, ARE OVERTLY SARCASTIC. That’s in their very name. Their videos are fun to watch, but I wouldn’t use them as a scholarly work about Greek mythology.

And so studying Zeus’ love life reveals a much more complicated history and evolution than just “In truth he was a serial rapist but nobody wanted to say it”.

 1) If you want it Roman, sprinkle some rape

Let’s tackle already the very concept of “Zeus as a serial rapist”. The answer is: no. I already talked about it previously (see my post about rape in mythology) but the whole reputation of Greek mythology as being all about rape is a huge misunderstanding caused by the Romans. Most of the stories of mythological rape came from the mind of Roman authors and writers. Ovid is a particulary bad offender, because thanks to his rape fetish he either invented lots of rapes or reinvented consensual relationships into rapes - and the problem is that Ovid’s Metamorphoses, despite being a Roman text that built a Romanize mythology, was used for a long time as a source of info about “Greek mythology”. When it was as Greek as Disney’s Hercules. And with Zeus you can actually see that: if you look at the texts in which most of his “rapes” are recorded... They are either Roman texts, or texts written far after the age of Ancient Greece, texts written in a Romanize Greece or by authors who tried to “reconstruct” the lost Greek myths by taking the preserved Roman versions as a source. So while yes Jupiter was a rapist, Zeus wasn’t a “serial rapist”. I haven’t checked EVERY story mind you, so there might some true “ancient rape”, but most of the time there is no rape - at most there is deceiving as for example Zeus will disguise himself under another shape, but this calls for more subtle, case-by-case analysis, as the transformations were done as much to not frighten/kill the often mortal lovers, as to protect said lovers from the wrath of Hera. 

2) If you like it, don’t say it

There is an implicit consent in Ancient Greek texts that modern audience, sensibilized to sexual harassment and “the evils of patriarchy”, often does not get. When someone rapes another person, the Ancient Greek author will explicitely say it. There will be descriptions of struggle, of violence, of resistance. If there is no mentions of that, if the relationship is not called a “rape”, it won’t be a rape. This notably led to a great confusion due to several myths describing Zeus “taking away” or “ravishing” a person in animal form, snatching them away from their home or community to isolate them and have love with them. I can sound like rape - but in effect, in the text, it is just ravishing someone. The confusion notably arose in latinized languages thanks to the word “rapt”, “rape”, originally meaning “taking someone away by force - usually with romantic or lustful intents but not always”. With time “rape” became what we know today, but in old-fashioned language a man in love with a girl but refused her hand by her parents, if he took her away from her parents nonetheless, it would be a rapt/rape - even if the girl was in love with him, because it was still forcefully and brutaly stealing away from a family/from parents. There is a big confusion arising from all that.

Second point is that in Ancient Greek texts, there is no need to explicitely describe the love and the consent of two parties to say “this was a consensual relationship”. While rape is explicitely described as rape, consensual love is not glossed much about. It will often just be said as “X laid with Y and they had three kids”. Or “X came into the bed of Y” or “Y was loved by X”. Often only one side of the couple will be evoked, but not because it was a one-sided relationship - just because there is an implicit consent that is not explicitely described. The Greeks thought that by nature, if two people had children together, it meant they had to be in love. If a man was described as “entering a girl’s bed” without mentions of him enslaving her or brutalizing her, it meant that she had allowed him to climb in her bed. It was a thought-structure that has been recently lost in an effort to prevent the “romanticism of rape”, but it was a thought logic that was prevalent in Ancient texts. Rape is explicit, consent is implied. 

(This also tied with a very Greek aesthetic of “sexuality is vulgar”. The Greeks were known to be disgusted by too expressive manifestations of desire. Sexuality was a needed and fine thing - but in moderation and subtlety. If someone loudly or openly enjoyed having sex, they were seen as pervs. Poets kept their art... well, poetic, by saying as little as possible about sexuality itself. This is why Ancient Greek statues of male nudes depicted such tiny genital organs. To have a “big one” was seen as something vulgar and ugly, as a manifestation of an excessive lust or overflowing desire that repelled rather than attracted. On the contrary, to have small sexual organs was something attractive, elegant, “polite” we may say.)

3) Confusion

If Zeus’ love life seems so messy today, it is because people confuse everything and mix together stories from so many sources. 

I already pointed out that there is a confusion between the Roman sources (aka “Greek myths rape edition”) and the actual Greek sources. But people also love to throw in Orphic content, not realizing that the Orphic religion was not the “mainstream” religion of the Greeks. This is why it is called “Orphic religion”, not “Ancient Greek religion”. Orphic poetry and Orphic literature fits with an Orphic cosmogony and Orphic rites that differ MASSIVELY from what we know as “Greek mythology”. Orphic religion is WEIRD and completely reinvent the Greek gods and legends by mixing them with motifs and concepts taken from Near-East and Middle-East religions and mythologies ; and so “fusing” it with well-known Greek myths such as the Homerics or the Hesiodics necessitates a HUGE rewrite because they were NOT made to fit, they belong to two different worlds. 

For example this is where you’ll find the whole legend of Zeus raping Persephone. Which doesn’t fit because if you look at “traditional” Greek myths, Zeus never slept with any of his daughters. 

4) Love VS Lust

As I said previously, the Romans and the “late” Greek authors (understand those that wrote in a Romanize Greece or in a post-Roman Greece/Christianized Greece) took the habit of turning the love life of the gods into a series of rapes and savage hunts. This applied to Zeus’ love life.

Because if you look at the older texts, at the “original” texts, what are the words you find? You find the words “seduction” - Zeus “seducing” women, women being “seduced” by Zeus, aka a process of charming and attracting his lovers, and the lovers themselves falling in love with Zeus or allowing him to share a night with them. And you find the word “love”. Zeus explicitely describes his feelings towards his old flames and affairs as “love”, or “sweet love”, “deep love”, “tender love”. 

This is in sharp contrast to the later writers and the depictions of rapes who use more explicit words such as “desire” and “lust”. There is a sharp contrast between the “older” Zeus as an all-lover, and the “newer” Zeus as a deity overflowing with lust. Mind you, in Ancient Greece love and sex were still mixed together (virginity being seen as refusing all love, and chaste lovers being unusual couples) but the Greeks still had a clear way of dividing sexuality as driven by love, from sexuality as driven by pure physical desire.

Which does tie into...

5) My weird Greek wedding

Greeks had a different conception of marriage.

Now, I am not adding as a “solid proof” that Zeus was better than what you think, or that him cheating on Hera was a socially accepted thing in any way. One must point out that the laws and society of Ancient Greeks didn’t actually fit their own myths - such as how Greek mythology presents strong, autonomous, “feminist” goddesses when in real life being a woman in Ancient Greece sucked. The Greeks themselves recognized that the gods, due to their inhuman and superior nature, were allowed things forbidden to mankind (for example incest was perfectly allowed and normal among gods, but sternly forbidden among humans - this topic had been discussed at length by the Greeks themselves). But... to take a peek into the society and the social norms of Ancient Greece does allow one to understand better the myths, by having a different light shine onto the legends. 

And the reason Zeus’ love life became so debordant (and why in general gods are known to have what we call today “affars”) is because Greek marriage was much more... permissive than our modern-day marriage. But just for men. Women were sworn to complete and utter fidelity and were owned by their husband or consort - they had no way of sleeping with anyone else. HOWEVER... men were allowed to sleep with women other than their wives in given conditions. Don’t understand me wrong: unfaithfulness was seen as a crime by Greek law, and a husband cheating on his wife was to be punished. But the law also allowed the husband to have a legal sex with other women outside of marriage without suffering any kind of punishment. It was the “Pallakai/Hetairai/Gynaekes” system. A man had to marry to a wife, and they could only have one wife to which they were to be faithful (they were the “gynaekes”). The wife was the “guardian of the house” and the keeper of the man’s home, and she was the one supposed to bear the man’s children, as well as the “tool” through which legitimate succession took place. She was a legal and domestic element. But a man was also allowed to have a “pallake”, that is to say a “concubine”. Pallakai were female slaves (either bought through the slave commerce, or taken back as war prisoners) that their master had sex with. Concubines were allowed for sex - but nothing more. They were sex slaves, but they were not supposed to take over the position of a wife. (In the legend of Agamemnon, Cassandra was a pallake/concubine, as opposed to Clytemnestra the wife).  And third came the “hetairai”, the prostitutes, who were also legally allowed to have sex with married men in exchange for money. 

So in conclusion, married men were allowed to have sex with prostitutes and concubines - as long as they did not made them fill a roll of “wife”. For example, while men were allowed to have pallakai, it was seen as of very poor taste to have your concubine live under the same roof as your wife (no need to tell you the “concubines” were usually found in noble ranks of the Greek society, among the rich and powerful). As it was said : “We have hetairai for pleasure, pallakai for the body’s daily needs, and gynaekes for the bearing of legitimate children and for the guardianship of our houses”. Three different types of sexual relationships allowed within a marriage, with three different purposes. To be crude: a commercial pleasure ; a living sex-toy ; and a legal wife. 

Taking this into account, the many extra-marital relationships of Zeus (and other gods) can gain a bit more sense as, in the Greek mindset a married man is allowed to have sexual relationships with other women as long as 1) it is just casual, non-consequence sex and 2) the other women is of a lesser rank (prostitute or slave). If we try to transpose it to the world of the gods, it explains why the male gods are searching for pleasure among mortal women (by definition, “lesser women”, as humans are inferior to gods and would be a good equivalent of prostitutes/slaves to the “citizen”), but never marry any of them and stick to having one divine wife. But in return, applying such a view onto the myths (which again is not the “correct” one, but just another angle) also explains why Hera would become so furious and so mad at Zeus’ affairs - because 1) as said above, Zeus often deeply loved his mistresses, and seems to have treated them as more than just casual one-nights and 2) he had children with them, which is normally the “prerogative” of the wife. This all leads to a divine repetition of the “Cassandra/Clytemnestra” tragedy, when a wife becomes jealous of a concubine when the husband seems too much attached to her, to the point of almost replacing his wife with her.

Because that’s a last point I should add: wives could easily be replaced in Ancient Greece. Well “easy” might be a bit of a strong word, there were legal procedures to be undertaken and there was money to be exchanged, but the thing is that divorce was a normal and usual thing for the Ancient Greeks. And not just for the men! A man could dissolve his marriage and get rid of his wife - but the same way a wife could get rid of her husband and dissolve her marriage. It was all allowed - and in fact this is why Zeus had so many wives before Hera in such a quick succession (up to seven wives if we believe some interpretations of the poems!). This social consideration could also add another point of view on this set of myths - if you decide to have a “social reading” of them - by raising the question “Why doesn’t Zeus leave Hera?” or “Why doesn’t Hera leave Zeus?”. Of course there is an answer to be provided with the construction of the myth itself - they would have never left each other in mythology because they were a couple in religion and a myth of a separation would only have occured if suddenly religion changed and declared the two weren’t a couple anymore, which likely would have never happened... But since we talk here about interpretation of the myths, and “reinventing” the myths, this is a very legitimate question to ask, especially since people keep this very Christianized view of ancient wedding as a thing people are stuck in till death. It opens a lot of funny and fascinating reinterpretations of the Greek myths: try to imagine, why would Zeus not leave Hera when he left his two or six previous wifes, and that despite all the crap going on in their marriage? You can find a dozen of answers going in very different directions...

ADDENDUM: Gods are not characters

... but while I always encourage people to be creative with their reinterpretation of the Greek gods for FICTION, here we are talking about the ACTUAL god and mythical figure, and I have gone a bit too far. Because all these later considerations are actually treating Zeus as a character. It isn’t all wrong - especially since a good chunk of what we know about Greek mythology comes from literary works, so the gods we know are a third “fictional characters”/”literature characters”. But it is also forgetting that they are mythical figures, AND religious figures. You know, actual gods, of a religion, with rites and canons and theological debates ; and figures of myths, as in the equivalent of today’s folktales and fairytales. Archetypes. Stock figures. Metaphores. Allegories. Not entities supposed to have human-like psychology, not entities supposed to be treated as fictional characters of an author’s work ; and whose stories are not supposed to always be coherent or logical - as long as they are powerful and meaningful. 

Yes there was a literary Zeus, akin to the various incarnations of Zeus we have in books today (and this is why we have different Zeus depending on the author - an Homeric Zeus, an Hesiodic Zeus...) ; but the religious and “truly mythical” Zeus of Antiquity was probably more akin to the folkloric/artistic/cultural figures we know today. The Grim Reaper, Father Time, Mother Nature, Jack Frost... Everybody knows who they are, what they look like, what they do, but nobody can give them a true “psychology” or will start saying “They’re like that because they had a bad childhood”. Books will give them backstories and personal traits and human depth - but you can’t call it the “true” incarnation of the entity. [Of course the analogy is a bit shaky because the texts of Homer and Hesiodic were heavily religious in nature, and so there is an effort to stick to an established belief and coherent canon - but we know that for later authors, religious authorities of Ancient Greece clearly considered some of their depictions of gods clear blasphemy.]

Note: I originally planned this post to be just one post, but as it turns out I have a LOT of things to say, so I better split my post into two to let you better appreciate the nuances of this debate. 

Second note: Of course I do not tell you to believe me on everything. Remember I am just one person, with a knowledge maybe big but still limited. Always double-check, triple-check, go look for other sources - and if I make any mistake don’t hesitate to tell it to me! With such vast and complex topics one can easily get lost into details and forget the big picture ; or the opposite. 

#greek mythology #greek myths #greek gods #zeus #hera #love in greek mythology #rape in greek mythology #ancient greece

[shadebyshad]

About Rebekah and her desire to have a child...

There are too many things to put in this title, so let's go with a brief subtitle: Rebekah Mikaelson, her desire to have children, things about humanity vs. vampirism and my contained anger about the whole plot.

Maybe it's too long, but stick with me

vampirism vs. humanity

First, we need to remember what vampirism symbolically represents in literature (and eventually in film) over the years: by exploring the transgression between life and death, they represent the concerns of a society at a particular time, as well as the dark side of the individual. They symbolize the exploitation of others, sexuality, lack of respect for others, contagious diseases, fear of the unknown (especially foreign cultures), non-conformism and religion.

Today, vampires personify real-world problems and offer a kind of refuge. Whereas previously vampires were subversive and unwanted beings, today they are something to be envied, a goal to be achieved. Despite being ambiguous beings, they are still beautiful, romantic (Twilight and TVD) and immortal. They are beings who reflect on their impulses, who repudiate the act of feeding on human blood (Edward and Stefan) and, according to myself, with a certain morality surrounding them.

And why does this matter for my long analysis? Well, because I'm obsessed with vampire and witch stories HAUAHUA. And because I think that TVD/TO fails a lot by not wanting to reflect deeply on humanity vs. vampirism. The writers bring up the concept of vampires being able to "turn off their humanity", but they never really define what "humanity" would be and then, in the last seasons, they show that they don't know what that means.

I like this concept a lot, it's interesting to see it used in the first seasons with the younger vampires and the older ones, who have a different idea of feelings and so on. I think too much, I analyze too much and I think the writers should have done the same, HAUHAUHA. What is humanity to vampires? Is it relative? Certainly, but what would be the humanity of each vampire who has been turned off in the series? And why should humanity reflect on how vampires perceive themselves and are perceived by others in the series? Klaus said that vampires should adapt their perception of time, but what about humanity?

They're not human anymore, they're going to live/have lived things that no human could understand, what we humans and mortals consider "humanity" shouldn't be relevant to them, at least for the older vampires. I understand and find it totally plausible that these concepts are still present in Caroline, Tyler and Elena when they turn. In fact, it would be very interesting to see them shedding this human notion in order to understand that it is no longer something viable for them.

And all this to say that I understand Rebekah wanting to be human by living a thousand years and realizing that life has no meaning if it's eternal, a human philosophy, but I understand the gorgeous's thinking and, like a fan, I'll just say: Rebekah, go for it!

Rebekah, trauma and being human again

I've only watched TO up to the second season, so if I've got something wrong, sorry, but anyway… Rebekah has a terrible fear of being abandoned, falls in love easily, loves too much, was transformed without her consent and, unfortunately or fortunately, I find her decision/desire to be human very coherent with the character.

Being human again would be a way of regaining the control that was taken from her, although wanting to "build a family" would be her way of escaping from the Mikaelsons. Since you can't choose what kind of family you're going to be born into, you just have to be lucky, the family Rebekah built would be different, they would be people she had chosen, people who had shown themselves to be worthy and affectionate. It's even common for this desire to manifest itself in children from toxic homes, at least I see it that way.

I'd love to see what made Rebekah think that her salvation was to be human, even though she was one of the most powerful beings in the world and had lived for so many years. Societies could be shitty to her because she's a woman, but like? Who gives a fuck? She could have a whole city at her feet if she wanted to, she could make people doubt her existence as a vampire like Klaus did and whatever else. So, how did she get there?

And I think that has a lot to do with his inability to have biological children. And with that…

children

REBEKAH COULD HAVE BEEN A MOTHER! Regardless of whether or not she is capable of giving birth, she can be a mother. Many women can't give birth either, and then the excuse of the story is that she's a vampire? Oh, fuck off, eh? That's what adoption is for.

I don't understand TVD's obsession with biological children and "creating a family", they're vampires from thousands of years ago, who go to school, go to several colleges, found a town, open a fucking bar, buy a bunch of houses, whatever, but they can't have a child? Spare me, spare us

I hate Caroline's pregnancy plot, but they know how to work that obsession better… work it more or less. I still hate it, it's one more time that TVD overturns all its pre-established rules.

And Rebekah might have thought that adopted children didn't have the same value as biological ones, but this isn't shown at any point. And if that were the case, her relationship with Klaus and Mikael would have been very different, as would the way she sees Klaus and Marcel's father-son relationship

It would have been lovely to see Rebekah find that mother-daughter connection with a child she could actually adopt, instead of the aunt-niece relationship. Vampires are so connected to the unconventional, even today being a worshipped and envied being, that it's very frustrating to see her wanting a child so badly and NOT GOING TO ADOPT ONE!!! It would be going against the typical tradition, understanding and showing that there are other ways of being a mother.

For a teen series with so much violence, it lacked boldness

And Rebekah can be a great feminist icon with good writing, okay?! When she comes out of the coffin and we meet her in the third season, she herself says that she was criticized for wearing pants at a time when it was a scandal. She's a Viking who, if we pretend that the writers have done real research into the Norse and the Vikings, has learned to fight and has done things that, from a Eurocentric and patriarchal perspective, are not good for a woman. And it's quite likely that she did more things that went against the grain, so I don't know why we didn't get our "Interview with the Vampire" plot starring Rebekah Mikaelson.

Well, at least she got the happy ending she deserved

#tvd #to #tvu #the vampire diares #analysis #text #rebekah mikaelson #some portuguese slang doesn't shine as brightly now that it's been translated

[ajthebumblebee]

With the Vivziepop controversy of the week being a tasteless and questionable depiction of SA, I want to go over the biggest issue with her work as a whole. It's very easy to just write it off as fetishizing. Especially with a supposed employee being into that. But I think it's more likely this happened because she just doesn't think through the implications and goes overboard, like usual.

A good example is with the show, Helluva Boss. Its biggest plotline is the messy relationship between Blitzø and Stolas. Specifically how Stolas has power over Blitzø to make him have sex with him. This is a major source of conflict and drama for the characters. Complicated further by the two having genuine feelings for each other and their shitty upbringings and loneliness. The show understands it and tries to handle it as well as it knows how.

HOWEVER

The show also has Blitzø be a boss to characters Moxxie and Millie. He is also shown to watch them have sex without their knowledge or consent, stalk them, make inappropriate comments, and touch them inappropriately. This is all presented as a joke to not take seriously.

I'm reminded of how Family Guy made an episode about legalizing weed. A scene shows Brian arguing it helps people with work... Right after showing Tom Tucker being unable to do his job because he's so high.

MacFarlane and Medrano both have left-wing views while simultaneously enjoying the edgy right-wing humor of South Park. So you have this weird disconnect between the messages and stories they actually want to tell and the jokes that actively go against it.

Yes, she has a pattern of having MLM characters' major sources of angst being shitty relationships and sexual assault. Something that sapphic and het characters never get as much focus with. And you can, and should, definitely have a problem with that.

But like I said, it's more likely she's going overboard with concepts she wants to explore and doesn't think it through with her edgy humor than outright fetishizing. And I don't think it's a particularly good idea to make assumptions about a person you don't know, based on the art they make. At best, it devolves the conversation into technicalities and defensiveness rather than discuss the problem at hand.

#sa mention

[northwest-cryptid]

So this is a personal little rant/vent about something that happened recently. One thing about general etiquette that I think has been lost, and I wish wasn't; is the concept of consent outside of sexual acts.

A friend of mine at work thought my jacket was cool and sort of lightly grabbed my shoulder to get a better look at it and then immediately removed himself to remark "oh shit my bad, sorry to touch you without permission." It didn't bother me or anything but I was sort of taken aback by it because it was so weird to me to see/hear someone actually care about something like that after living a life of being such a people pleaser that my feelings on such things don't seem to matter.

See it's not a huge secret that I'm a casual streamer, and as such I have friends and acquaintances who stream as well. It really bothered me that at one point I was TOLD, not asked; but TOLD that a friend of mine and I were to participate in a collab the following day when.

A. My friend did not have the time off from work, and did not play the game in question to begin with.

and B. I didn't have the time nor interest in playing such game at the moment, as I didn't really get along well with some of the people in the collab.

So I sort of brought that up and I was told basically "oh we wanted 4 people." Which made my friend and I realize we were literally just last second filler. We weren't valued as individuals, we were "assigned" to the collab because they thought we had the game and thought we were free and thought we wouldn't care about being thrown into a collab last minute.

For the record the person in charge of the collab actually took that information rather well, and we've collabed since with them properly asking me "would you like to collab for [game] on [day] around [time]?" Which I have so much respect for, because yes it's okay to make mistakes as long as you actually try to grow from them. It also helps that the host and I were proper friends before this incident; and continue to actually be friends (of some years now) after the incident.

People don't know how to, or just won't ask for consent on things they think don't require it. Despite the fact that asking anyone to do anything honestly requires some level of consent.

Now don't get me wrong I'm not trying to sound like some extremist. I'm not going to ask the barista if they mind making me a drink; by working the job they're consenting to do the duties of that job, they are ultimately in control of their actions and could quit at any time without any level of personal backlash from me as a consumer of the product they prepare. However in a social situation consent is really important and often boils down to just changing your words a little.

At work I'm often ASKED "would you mind handling this?" or "Can I get you to run and do that for me?" Which makes a big difference when our regional manager always words things as "Do this, do that. You need to get this done."

So what spurred all of this? Well recently my friend who was in charge of that collab was having a collab with the other individual from that original collab; which is great, and I thought maybe this would be a cool time to sort of be friendly and maybe sort of fix that burnt bridge a little. So I tried talking in chat before, not my friend; but the other individual literally said "Get in here, Cryptid." To which my good friend, and host; had to tell them "Cryptid's got people visiting right now" and their response was simply "oh that's homophobic"

The whole reason this sort of "sent me" so to speak is because it felt like someone who hardly knows me, and didn't seem to enjoy my company last time we spent time together; and who doesn't value my time was demanding my time over me getting to finally spend time with friends who I've known for YEARS and hardly ever get to see in person. While my friend was very understanding and even told me "hey say hi to [mutual friend] for me!" This individual who hardly knows me demanded I join the collab, and was audibly upset when those demands could not be met due to my own self interest.

Don't act like that, it's not funny; it's not a good look. It makes you look extremely self entitled and VERY arrogant. It's rough because I know they are a friend of my friend and I am desperately trying to get along with them, but their social etiquette is so lacking that every time I try to spend time with them I come away from it feeling annoyed and bothered by a general lack of being respected as a human being.