shark vs the universe
Three Goblin Art
Aqua Utopia｜海の底で記憶を紡ぐ
NASA
祝日 / Permanent Vacation
JVL
Today's Document
izzy's playlists!
Acquired Stardust
oozey mess
RMH
@theartofmadeline
will byers stan first human second
No title available
No title available
Not today Justin
tannertan36
No title available
JBB: An Artblog!
Discoholic 🪩
seen from United Kingdom
seen from United States
seen from Mexico
seen from United States
seen from South Korea
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Saudi Arabia
seen from Türkiye
seen from Germany
seen from Türkiye
seen from United Kingdom
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United Kingdom
seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
seen from Türkiye
seen from United States
seen from Australia
seen from T1
@britishauthor
I know people assign human traits to a lot of things but you really don't need to anthropomorphize books. People act like dog -earing pages is a slippery slope to book burning
"they are books not things" they are stacks of paper glued together. They are a medium for conveying information. I will eat your entire copy of the hunger games in front of you and you will be too distressed to stop me. How do you people have this much reverence for books and yet no literary analysis skills
We’re not “just friends,” we’re friends.
Stop defining friendship as less than romance. Stop defining romance as better than friendship.
Friendship is enough, friendship is beautiful and fulfilling and good. Friendship isn’t less than. No type of relationship is better than another.
This post has been blowing up since I posted it and I’d like to take this opportunity to say that if you’re alloromantic (even if you’re ace) please don’t derail this post.
If you think this post is about how important friendship is, you’re missing the point. It’s specifically about how amatanormativity damages the label of friendship by forcing it to mean “less than romance,” and how that is harmful to the aromantic community. I didn’t specifically reference the aro community in my post because I didn’t think it would leave aro spaces (seeing as my blog isn’t popular and is centered around aromanticism), but it has and now people are interpreting the post the wrong way, so I wanted to clear it up. If you’re alloromantic, please take a minute to think about what this post is about before commenting, or just don’t comment at all.
This is about the damage that amatonormativity does on the aro community, not about how important your best friend is to you. Make your own post. /lh /nm
Rhianna Pratchett confirming her father wouldn't be a """gender critical""" activist (whatever the hell those GCs stand for) if he were still alive
The GCs are Terfs. A specific type of transphobe. Quite a few British celebrity got recruited to their ranks and they have the money and clout to do a lot of damage unfortunately.
Terry passed away before Rowling started her downward spiral and played a significant role in creating the current toxic atmosphere around Trans rights in England . It is good to see that his daughter ,who is also a writer, stands up for human rights.
That’s despicable trying to “recruit” someone who’s DEAD. Not to mention there’s NOTHING in Pratchett’s books—including the ones of essays, articles, and speeches—to suggest he join in if he was alive.
And obviously his own kid would know his private opinions so hopefully the assholes will see her tweet and back the fuck off.
(GC stands for “gender critical”, when you see that it usually means that you’re talking to/about terfs who are trying to rebrand their image).
For those of you who are wondering who else the original tweet is referring to, they are talking about Margaret Atwood, a very prominent feminist author (probably best known for The Handmaid’s Tale). Because she is a feminist the terfs assumed that she’d naturally side with them, and it came as a massive shock (for some reason) when she very publicly opposed and humiliated all of terfdom.
But yeah I don’t know how terfs can possibly get through Discworld books without any kind of self-awareness but apparently they do. I’ve also seen them talking about how the Wives in the Handmaid’s Tale are all trans women (solely based on the fact that they are infertile). If you know anything about the plot or even the basic premise you’ll know how ludicrous that suggestion is.
Terf rhetoric basically revolves around throwing shit at the wall and then crawling around in anything that sticks, but the underlying transphobia is always present.
Rhianna Pratchett is the best.
“Terry Pratchett” is now a trending topic on twitter and everyone is just slamming the people who claim he would be transphobic. It’s been really nice to see
Also there’s this
SHREK 2 (2004)
I’m only just realizing thst the “Catnip” is likely planted. Look st the movement of the cops hand in the second gif. Looks more like he’s passing it from hand to hand
In the second gifset you can even see the bag underneath the armour so yeah its v much planted
check out this spotify playlist of men covering women’s songs without changing pronouns
nice
the same user made a playlist of women covering men’s songs without changing pronouns!
double nice
“What are your standards?”
Beatrice and Benedict are same-sex leaning disaster bisexuals who are both extremely surprised when they end up falling for someone of the opposite sex.
exeunt-pursued-by-a-bear said:
hot take: beatrice saying “he hath EVERY month a new sworn brother” about benedick is her teasing him for just having an endless string of boyfriends
Yes. Good. Excellent. Just as Shakespeare intended.
@toomanyfeelings5
YES. YES. ALL TRUE.
I would also like to add that ‘And a good soldier to a lady. But what is he to a Lord?’ is Beatrice asking for confirmation that Benedick is a bottom
David Tennant and Catherine Tate best encapsulate the bi disaster vibes each of them give
Look at these dorks
Bach’s Cello Suite No. 1 in G, Prélude
This with the rain, Oh what a mood
Please assume that if I never reblog this again I’m dead.
straight people: we should really congratulate all the folks involved in the stonewall riots
me: sure yeah.
straight people:
me: i don’t know what i was expecting.
Ineffable Husbands + Greek Types of Love
May I strive to be like this.
May I strive to be like this.
How can I reblog this a million times? The 1% are master manipulators.
The existence of another poor person is not why you’re poor.
Super Simple Shit. It’s not the homeless it’s the mansions💯
“The choice (Catherine) made to comfort me in that moment, it was unexpected, it wasn’t part of, it wasn’t scripted, and it happened. And I think when we were putting the scene together, it did so much for that scene, because it became something that was not just an emotional moment between two people who were falling in love, but it also became a really beautiful representation of how parents should always support their children” — Dan Levy.
i love watching the show my cat from hell because 9/10 times it usually features a heterosexual couple fighting over their hellion cat with one partner (usually the guy) saying “i cant stand this cat it needs to leave” while the girl is just like “no we can figure something out” and when jackson galaxy asks them if they would call it quits over the cat the guy is just like “ofc not she would always choose me over the cat” but if you zoom in on the girls face when he says that you know,,,,,you know,,,,,who will be leaving,,,,,,,,that house first
I was watching an episode w my dad and he couldn’t understand why they hadn’t gotten rid of the cat, but then I said something I guess he wasn’t expecting:
“The second a man gives me an ultimatum, the relationship is over.”
He kept harping that I’m going to be a very lonely woman with that attitude, so I told him that a man’s conditional affection, if it can be withdrawn or withheld over anything, is disingenuous and therefore worthless to me.
When you have a pet, that animal’s whole world revolves around you. They rely on you for everything. My pets are important to me, and if I got into a new relationship with somebody and they wanted them gone, I would dump that person’s ass in a heartbeat. My pets are my responsibility and my family. If a prospective partner really cared about me, they wouldn’t ever give me an ultimatum or try to force me to give up my animals. That’s not someone I want in my life.
“It’s the cat or me.” Welp, I guess I choose the cat because I’ve had him since he was a kitten and he doesn’t care for anyone but me. You can find somebody else to put up with your ultimatum bullshit.
I have my beloved boy cat right now because he was a victim of a girlfriend who said to his previous owner “it’s me or that cat” – and the boyfriend chose the girl. So the cat-who-would-become-mine went to a rescue organization, and the boyfriend signed him over – and a week later I adopted my kitty. But my cat was one of the lucky ones – at least the boyfriend cared enough about him to sign him over to a rescue/rehoming organization. Sometimes cats just get driven out to the woods or another neighborhood and dumped, because “it’s a cat – it can fend for itself.” (Spoiler alert – “it” can’t.)
Oh, one more spoiler alert – one of the rescue folks told me later that the girlfriend dumped the guy, and that he then came back to the rescue place to see if he could get his cat back or find out where his cat went. And of course, contractually and morally, they wouldn’t tell him, and reminded him he signed a contract.
So the dumbass, predictably, lost both his feckless girlfriend and his cat.
I’m SO glad my cat is now with me, in a FOREVER HOME. I love him so much, and after a period of understandable mourning, he completely loves me…must touch me or be on top of me while sitting on the couch watching TV; must be on my desk supervising while I’m writing; and burrows under the blankets every night to sleep curled up next to me. But it makes me sad to think someone could ever give him up because someone said to them “it’s me or the cat.” That should have been a red-flag warning to any sane person.
When I was in high school a friend of mine got a kitten. Her mother’s boyfriend came around that night, saw the kitten, and was like “oh, absolutely not, nope! No, get rid of it.”
My friend’s mum was stunned for a couple of minutes, and then was like “you think you have the right to come into my house and tell my daughter that she’s not allowed to have a kitten? Get out.” She broke up with him on the spot and told him never to contact them again. He sputtered and was outraged that she was choosing a kitten over him, but tbh, it wasn’t even about the kitten itself. It was about the fact that he barged into her house and started making demands that he had no right to make. That told so much about his character, right there.
I could have the most foul-tempered mangy little feral cat who tried to scratch my eyes three times a day, and if someone told me to pick between the cat and them, the cat would win without contest. Because how dare you come into my life and try to dictate which parts of my life I should keep or toss.
pls give me 1(one) reason aces have ever been oppressed, and 1(one) example of aces being a part of lgbt history(before 2004 at least) and then maybe i’ll consider the idea that aces belong in the lgbt community lol
Proof of the existence of asexuals in LGBT+ communities before 2000:
The Golden Orchid association (1644-1949) - a group of women in China that included lesbians, bisexuals, and “women who wanted to avoid both marriage options, and any romantic or sexual partnership” that today we would call asexual or aromantic.
Another Golden Orchid association link (which, interestingly, describes what appears to be a poly relationship).
Personal experience of a queer-identifying person noting that aces were part of the bi community in the 80s and 90s.
A book published in 1999 supports the previous link of someone’s personal experience, and notes that asexuals could be considered part of Kinsey’s “Group 3″ (the bisexuals) because they were “about equally homosexual and heterosexual” and “have no strong preferences for one or the other” just like bisexuals.
Another book that supports the personal experience source by noting that asexuals were considered part of the bisexual “Group 3″, which was published in 1999.
Another post of someone’s personal experiences of asexuals being part of the LGBT+ community in the 90s.
A source from 1999 noting that, while some female-female relationships in the early to mid-twentieth century were obviously lesbian relationships, not all of them were, but that it would be a mistake to label them all “friendships”. It specifically notes that asexual partnered relationships also existed.
This book describes a series of interviews done in 1990 by Catherine Whitney who interviewed heterosexual women married to gay men, and found that they were often asexual. It also describes how, in 1990, Ann Landers (a very popular advice columnist) asked her readers if married couples could enjoy a full life without sex and was flooded with 35,000 responses from people of all ages who had little or no sex and didn’t miss it. It also describes how “Boston marriage” was originally coined with a not-necessarily-always-accurate implication that such a relationship between women was nonsexual, but that later on the assumption was reversed to imply women in a sexual lesbian relationship, and how that caused some women involved in such relationships to hide the asexual nature of their relationships for fear of being called frauds by the larger lesbian community.
This 1997 book that states “To be a Kinsey 3 (bisexual) is to be equally attracted to men and women, i.e. completely bisexual…it is also to be equally unattracted to men and women, i.e. completely asexual. Bisexuality is never about two, only about one – asexual, or self-fulfilling – or three – continuously and equally attracted to both men and women”.
Proof of asexuality being considered as a concrete, distinct orientation before 2000:
One of the first online posts about asexuality in its current use, was made in 1997.
A study on anorexia and bulemia in gay and bisexual men done in 1999 found that 58% of anorexia patients were asexual.
The 1997 Australasian Gay & Lesbian Law Journal mentions asexual as a “relevant sexual identity”.
A 1983 issue of the Journal of Sex Research studied the Mental Health Implications of Sexual Orientation among heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, and asexual people.
The article “Asexuality as Orientation: Some Historical Perspectives” describes different historical studies on asexuality, including a study from Johnson in 1977 where the word asexual was used to describe women “regardless of physical or emotional condition, actual sexual history, and marital status or ideological orientation, [who] seem to prefer not to engage in sexual activity”. It also describes a 1980 study by Storms who included asexual as one of four orientation categories when mapping out sexual orientation. It also describes a 1983 study by Nurius that found out of 685 participants, 5% of males and 10% of females were asexual. It also describes a 1990 study by Berkley et al. that included questions “related to homosexuality, heterosexuality, and asexuality” and included four items (out of 45) that were specific to asexuality.
This book published in 1922 contains a lot of what I personally would describe as narcissism and pseudo-science, but acknowledges asexuality nonetheless: “In addition to the ordinary distinctive males and females, we have asexuals, homosexuals, bisexuals, and old women of both sexes.”
This book from 1996 that notes “A transsexual may have a heterosexual orientation, a homosexual orientation, a bisexual orientation – or an asexual orientation” and clarifies that “a very small number – are asexual or bisexual.”
This book mentions a study by Malyon in 1981 that noted the options available to gay and lesbian teenagers choosing whether, or how, to come out by “[describing] three possible modes of adaptation in adolescence: repression of sexual desire, suppression of homosexual impulses in favor of heterosexual or asexual orientation, or a homosexual disclosure.”
Kinds of oppression that asexuals face:
Eunjung Kim wrote a chapter titled “How Much Sex Is Healthy? The Pleasures of Asexuality” that describes how “the absence of sexual desires, feelings, and activities is seen as abnormal and reflective of poor health” in Western contemporary culture “because of the explicit connection between sexual activeness and healthiness” and argues that “medical explanations of asexuality as an abnormality that has to be corrected constitute a large part of the stigmatization and marginalization experienced by asexual people.” It also discusses the ways in which some groups, specifically Asian American males, that are desexualized can erase the space for asexual Asian American men to simply exist.
Asexuals also face sexual harassment, rape threats, corrective sexual assault, and corrective rape (which, no, is not a lesbian-only term according to actual South Africans) specifically because they are asexual.
There was a recent study by the AAU to identify sexual assault on college campuses, and broke down the responders to their survey by sexual orientation, including asexual. The results clearly show that asexuals are not immune to unwanted sexual contact, stalking, intimate partner violence, or sexual harassment.
A chapter of “Asexualities: Feminist and Queer Perspectives” that notes the specific way that asexual people are talked to/about: “Because asexual difference cannot be iterated in the linguistic field where sex and a sexed position dominate the discourse of sexuality and desire, the asexual subject is linguistically and visually dismantled and reconstructed in the position of a fetish object. This fetishistic conversion happens because the asexual person is made into an image, or spectacle, for consumption.” and “The difference between the unassailable asexual (someone who lacks all of the traits commonly blamed for asexuality such as past history of abuse, disability, etc.) and the spectacular asexual is that while the unassailable asexual allegedly makes asexuality digestible for a skeptical public and presents an accessible image, the spectacular asexual is always consumed as a fetish object, regardless of mental health, ability, and gender.”
The study “Intergroup bias toward “Group X”: Evidence of prejudice, dehumanization, avoidance, and discrimination of asexuals” is exactly what it sounds like. The article’s abstract states: “In two studies (university student and community samples) we examined the extent to which those not desiring sexual activity are viewed negatively by heterosexuals. We provide the first empirical evidence of intergroup bias against asexuals (the so-called “Group X”), a social target evaluated more negatively, viewed as less human, and less valued as contact partners, relative to heterosexuals and other sexual minorities. Heterosexuals were also willing to discriminate against asexuals (matching discrimination against homosexuals). Potential confounds (e.g., bias against singles or unfamiliar groups) were ruled out as explanations.”
The Invisible Orientation: An Introduction to Asexuality describes many issues that asexuals face, including: how asexuality is seen as “invisible” and lends to people thinking it does not exist, how asexuality is actively erased as “unimportant” or not its own identity, the explicitly and implicitly negative messages associated with a lack of sexual attraction, the fear asexuals face when they believe there is something physically or psychologically wrong with them for being asexual, the belief asexuals face about how they must be deeply flawed since they do not conform to other sexual identities, how asexuals face cultural ideologies that sexuality is biologically based and ubiquitous (that all humans possess sexual desire) and that don’t acknowledge asexuality, that to describe oneself as asexual is a statement of moral superiority or purity or failure to find a suitable partner, that asexuality is an immature state they will “grow out of”, that asexuality is a description of action or a preference, that asexuality is unnatural or unhealthy or has to be a symptom of something else, etc.
Asexuality has been shown in the media in a negative light for decades, reflecting the idea that (for various reasons steeped in classism and racism) any woman who wasn’t willing to marry and procreate was a threat to the status quo, as seen in this 1955 book that notes: “Women who did not marry incurred political and social scorn for another reason. The influx of eastern and southern European immigrants in the United States pushed the question into eugenic terms–the wrong people were reproducing. Educated women came primarily from white middle- and upper-class stock, the most desired element by dominant social norms. When these women refused to marry and reproduce, they forced a new concern into the public discourse. it is not a coincidence that the stereotypical asexual unmarried older woman emerged at this time as a source of popular humor.”
Some people in some religions are very explicit about hating asexuals specifically because they are asexual, seeing asexuality as “a perversion akin to homosexuality and bestiality”.
Other religions see asexuals as actually sinful if they choose not to have sex with their spouse.
While not every member of every religion looks down on asexuals, many people in portions of various religions choose to view asexuals negatively.
Some people even recommend asexuals avoid being in a relationship with non-asexuals and assert that “promoting and trying to spread” asexuality, or behaving in an asexual manner, is wrong or unhealthy.
Because of these religious beliefs about asexuality, that also opens up asexuals to discrimination in various legal ways, including (but not limited to) things like the new adoption bill in Texas.
Asexuality was implicitly pathologized until very recently, and even now, the DSM-V states that a diagnosis of HSDD may not be given only if the patient has a preexisting knowledge of asexuality and chooses to ID that way.
TL;DR:
Asexuals have long been considered part of the bisexual community. When people used to talk about bisexuals, it included asexuals because asexuals were the bisexuals too. Bisexual history is asexual history.
Asexuals have also long been considered as a stand-alone orientation that was part of larger non-straight communities and could be studied in comparison to other sexual orientations.
Asexuals face many of the same issues that other marginalized orientations face as well as issues specific to their orientation. These include erasure, medicalization, misidentification, harassment, rape specifically targeted at them for being asexual, and religious intolerance, to name just a few.
None of this is exhaustive. There are more sources to be found and studied.
please reblog this amazing post!!
When the whole party is down but your bard is up
jack had absolutely no right to go this hard
