todays bird
$LAYYYTER
No title available
hello vonnie
No title available
đȘŒ
The Bowery Presents
blake kathryn
NASA
Jar Jar Binks Fan Club
d e v o n
taylor price
RMH
noise dept.
official daine visual archive
Mike Driver
tumblr dot com
Keni
Not today Justin
Game Changer & Make Some Noise
seen from Pakistan
seen from United States
seen from Mali
seen from TĂŒrkiye
seen from Malaysia
seen from Australia
seen from Bangladesh
seen from United States
seen from Brunei
seen from Pakistan
seen from Bangladesh
seen from Togo
seen from Tunisia
seen from France
seen from Canada
seen from Hungary
seen from Spain
seen from United Arab Emirates
seen from Finland
seen from TĂŒrkiye
@counteractivist
End of year predictions! Fun!
5-20M dead in the US, 100-500M dead globally from the virus itself, another 50-150K in the US from other causes as a direct result of Corona (crime, Healthcare collapse), 2.5-10M globally
10-30% unemployment in the US
Completely economic collapse of the planet
Complete Healthcare collapse in the US
5-10Y recovery for the US, 2-3Y most other countries
Unless we act a bit more than we are, anyway.
Anyways, Happy St Patrick's day.
In the age of Trump
Should I revive this blog?
Punching Nazis. Patriotic?
My general rule of thumb is when bad things happen to bad people, it's a good thing. Â I go so far as to consider the person who punches a Nazi to be a true patriot, and champion of individual liberties and freedoms consistent with some of the core values this nation was founded on.
âWhat the fuck? Â That makes no sense! Â What about the Naziâs First Amendment rights!â
Then let me explain. Â To punch a Nazi, someone willingly sacrifices their own personal freedoms and rights in an effort to protect the freedom and liberty of others (they know they risk imprisonment, or worse, for doing punching someone).
What's in it for them? Nothing. They gain nothing personally (expect a pat on the back!), and risk everything (literally). They do it for one reason: to try to stop the spread of an ideology that says some people are not people, and by extension the idea that some people shouldn't get the same freedoms or protections as others, based on their physical characteristics or their personal ideologies*. In other words, they are true patriots because they are willingly and voluntarily sacrificing themselves to protect a core principle set forth in the founding of this nation; all men are created equal, and that we all enjoy equal personal liberties, rights, and protections and applications of law.
Like the right to exist.
Toxic ideologies like this are literally killing people. People are being stabbed, shot, hung, beaten, harassed, stalked, terrorized, and more, just for existing. These ideologies tell those attackers that the victims are inferior in some way, and that they are the 'enemy'. When these ideologies penetrate into positions of power, they become validated and legitimized. Â Victims of crimes are afraid to come forward, perpetrators of crimes go free. Â
How can someone protect those spreading these ideologies? How can someone consider themselves "patriotic" when defending the groups trying to undo the things this country stands for? "I'm protecting the first amendment!" is neither good enough, nor is it even your responsibility in such private cases. When the Government attacks the First Amendment, THEN it's your responsibility. Â To give a relevant example: When the Federal Government attacks, condemns, bars from access, silences, or openly displays favoritism towards or against specific private press agencies, THEN it's your responsibility to speak up.
 * So, should punching Nazis be legal? Should people be arrested for being racist? Nope, and nope. Because personal freedom is important. That's the whole point of this post. If your ideology is that youâre a racist piece of shit, you should still enjoy the same freedoms, liberties, and protections under law.
âWhat?â
Pay attention.
The government has no business telling the people what we can or cannot say, and citizens have no right to execute their own punishments on other citizens; when they do, they break the law.
Punching a Nazi is not a government act. There's no congressional vote to determine left hook or right. You're first amendment rights don't protect you from a privately owned fist. Other laws protect against that, and those laws should remain in place, and will remain in place. Â
Just because something is morally reprehensible, doesnât mean it should be illegal. Â Racists exist, and will continue to exist. They cannot and should not be outlawed in any fashion, because then we give the Government the authority to decide what we can think, say, or believe.Â
Then again, just because something is illegal, doesnât mean itâs morally reprehensible. Â Assault is illegal, yes. Â Arrest the puncher, press charges and convict them. Give them the standard punishment equal to the severity of the offense (because ALL should enjoy EQUAL protection and application of the law, which, in an ironic twist, is the very concept the puncher punched to defend), and move the fuck on.
Dear anon: I have no idea what post that ask is in reference to. Reblog the post with your question/comments if you feel I made a mistake somewhere.
NO HELP FOR MEN
Guys I just found out there are ZERO resources for male victims of domestic violence in the whole state of Kentucky. NONE.
Too funny. Even a year later, this experiment holds true. From a blog that is THEMED on helping men, no less
The experiment was to see if people who claim to care about victimized men care more about actually helping them, or care more about criticizing feminists.
The shocking and ongoing conclusion, no. The people who claim to care about male victims are actually more concerned with criticizing feminists than they are actually helping men. If you actually gave two shits about helping men, you wouldnât have re-blogged this without first looking it up.
I posted the below one week prior to this post by the way. It has two notes.
http://counteractivist.tumblr.com/post/108773255144/if-you-care-about-helping-male-victims-more-than
Thanks for playing.
I find it absolutely incredible that meninism is defended as satire by the same people who think there is actually a killallmen movement.
Seriously, which one is more likely? Someone thinking âbitch make me a sandwichâ or the genocide of half the planet? Really?
There are a lot of women who took the kill all men tag seriously though
Do you have any sources of women going on killing sprees of men under the banner of #killallmen?
Considering there are âa lot of women who took it seriouslyâ it should be easy to find the examples, but gosh darn it I just canât find any.
No no no. I did not make my point clear enough. I apologize.
What I meant to say with that was that the âkillallmenâ tag was coined as a joke by feminists first but some actually use it to show their dislike of men. I did not mean they actually went on killing sprees. Just like meninisim is satire, but actually taken seriously by some people.
Believe it or not, there are a lot of rad fems who wouldnât mind if half the planet got slaughtered.Â
Fair enough
Reblogging for the clarification
I find it absolutely incredible that meninism is defended as satire by the same people who think there is actually a killallmen movement.
Seriously, which one is more likely? Someone thinking âbitch make me a sandwichâ or the genocide of half the planet? Really?
There are a lot of women who took the kill all men tag seriously though
Do you have any sources of women going on killing sprees of men under the banner of #killallmen?
Considering there are "a lot of women who took it seriously" it should be easy to find the examples, but gosh darn it I just can't find any.
Iâm sorry to hear about your friend anon, false accusations are indeed a terrible thing especially when they result in destroyed lives. This does indeed happen on occasion and it is unfortunate.
you can be wary of them, sure. However. I said âif false accusations are among your top concernsâ there is something wrong.
There were 33,000 deaths as a result of traffic accidents in 2010. What happened to your friend is terrible, but if you are afraid of false accusations more than you are getting into a car, Statistically speaking, you have some weird priorities.
Iâve seen far too many cancer adverts with only women in them.
Itâs important to remember that men are equally at risk of developing cancer, and I donât think there is a tough enough focus on it.
Men are actually more at risk of getting and dying from their respective cancers then women:Â
Breast:
The five-year survival rate is the percentage of people who survive at least five years after the cancer is found. If the cancer is located only in the breast, the five-year relative survival rate of people with breast cancer is 99%. If the cancer has spread to the regional lymph nodes, the five-year survival rate is 85%. If the cancer has spread to a distant part of the body, the five-year survival rate is 25%. For all stages combined, the five-year survival rate for breast cancer is 89%, the 10-year rate is 83%, and the 15-year rate is 78%.
The overall five-year survival rate is the percentage of women who survive at least five years after the cancer is found. The overall five-year survival rate is 45%, but this varies widely depending on the extent or stage of the cancer and the age of the woman.
Ovarian
If the cancer is diagnosed and treated before it has spread outside the ovaries, the five-year survival rate is 92%. If the cancer has spread to the surrounding organs or tissue (regional spread), the five-year survival rate is 72%. If the cancer has spread to parts of the body far away from the ovary (distant spread), the five-year survival rate is 27%. The overall 10-year survival rate for ovarian cancer is 35%.
Cervical
The five-year survival rate is the percentage of women who survive at least five years after the cancer is found. For all stages of cervical cancer, the five-year survival rate is 68%. When detected at an early stage, the five-year survival rate for women with invasive cervical cancer is 91%. If cervical cancer has spread to surrounding tissues or organs and/or the regional lymph nodes, the five-year survival rate is 57%. If the cancer has spread to a distant part of the body, the five-year survival rate is 16%.
Uterine
The five-year relative survival rate is the percentage of people who survive at least five years after the cancer is found. For uterine cancer, the overall five-year survival rate is 82%. If the cancer is diagnosed as local (without spread) uterine cancer at diagnosis is about 95%. If the cancer is diagnosed with regional spread, the five-year survival rate is about 68%, and if diagnosed after the cancer has spread more distantly, it is 18%.
Prostate:
Overall, most men who develop prostate cancer (99%) are expected to live at least five years after diagnosis. Ninety-eight percent (98%) are alive after 10 years, and 94% live for at least 15 years.
Also you failed to include that in your own source it states that the mortality rate of Prostate cancer is only actually higher than breast cancer at advanced ages, and that, according to your own source, you are at least two or more times likely to die of Breast cancer compared with Prostate cancer until the 75+ age bracket. Prostate cancer mortality rate doesnât even represent a blip on this chart until age 40-44.
Also, your own source, is arguing in favor of breast cancer funding.
Iâve seen far too many cancer adverts with only women in them.
Itâs important to remember that men are equally at risk of developing cancer, and I donât think there is a tough enough focus on it.
Men are actually more at risk of getting and dying from their respective cancers then women:Â
Breast:
The five-year survival rate is the percentage of people who survive at least five years after the cancer is found. If the cancer is located only in the breast, the five-year relative survival rate of people with breast cancer is 99%. If the cancer has spread to the regional lymph nodes, the five-year survival rate is 85%. If the cancer has spread to a distant part of the body, the five-year survival rate is 25%. For all stages combined, the five-year survival rate for breast cancer is 89%, the 10-year rate is 83%, and the 15-year rate is 78%.
The overall five-year survival rate is the percentage of women who survive at least five years after the cancer is found. The overall five-year survival rate is 45%, but this varies widely depending on the extent or stage of the cancer and the age of the woman.
Ovarian
If the cancer is diagnosed and treated before it has spread outside the ovaries, the five-year survival rate is 92%. If the cancer has spread to the surrounding organs or tissue (regional spread), the five-year survival rate is 72%. If the cancer has spread to parts of the body far away from the ovary (distant spread), the five-year survival rate is 27%. The overall 10-year survival rate for ovarian cancer is 35%.
Cervical
The five-year survival rate is the percentage of women who survive at least five years after the cancer is found. For all stages of cervical cancer, the five-year survival rate is 68%. When detected at an early stage, the five-year survival rate for women with invasive cervical cancer is 91%. If cervical cancer has spread to surrounding tissues or organs and/or the regional lymph nodes, the five-year survival rate is 57%. If the cancer has spread to a distant part of the body, the five-year survival rate is 16%.
Uterine
The five-year relative survival rate is the percentage of people who survive at least five years after the cancer is found. For uterine cancer, the overall five-year survival rate is 82%. If the cancer is diagnosed as local (without spread) uterine cancer at diagnosis is about 95%. If the cancer is diagnosed with regional spread, the five-year survival rate is about 68%, and if diagnosed after the cancer has spread more distantly, it is 18%.
Prostate:
Overall, most men who develop prostate cancer (99%) are expected to live at least five years after diagnosis. Ninety-eight percent (98%) are alive after 10 years, and 94% live for at least 15 years.
Wow thatâs just crazy. #antifeminism #antifeminist #feminism #feminist #sjw #cringe #why #facepalm #stupidity
A single google search indicates this was actually posted by a troll.
https://tweetsave.com/godfreyelfwick/status/556742875850235904
The twitter account in question:
https://twitter.com/godfreyelfwick
You know sexual objectification doesnât make any sense as a concept. Like itâs not a normal thing to want to have sex with objects. Like thatâs not what evolution has trained us to do. We want to have sex with people because thatâs what our biology states. So, we donât turn people into sex objects. We just turn people into people we want to have sex with.Â
Literal sex objects, fleshlights, vibrators, etc have a single purpose - physical sexual pleasure to the user. When people say sexual objectification, they are implying that the person is being treated as a sex object in that the person is being used for sexual pleasure, and that no other considerations are taken by the âuserâ, while the other person feels as though they were simply used for pleasure and effectively âdiscardedâ as one might do to a literal sex object. The more you know.
Donât we humanize those objects? I mean we make dildos and flesh lights look like the thing weâre trying to emulate. The human body. For the most part Iâll admit Iâve seen some weird stuff but thatâs the exception not the rule. Objectophilia is a real serious mental disorder. Being attracted to objects isnât something that humanâs will do unless there is seriously something wrong. People donât see other people as objects when they want to have sex with them. This is just fundamentally wrong. Sex drive doesnât take away your empathy. You would already have to be fucked up for that to happen.Â
Also I donât think you understand how sex works. If itâs consensual sex then yes the persons feelings do have to be taken into consideration on whether they want sex or not. If itâs not consensual then something is fucked up in the persons head and again this kind of thing isnât normal.Â
If itâs consensual sex and you arenât getting any pleasure out of the experience either tell your partner to stop or tell them that you arenât getting anything out off it. If you feel objectified cause you didnât get any pleasure from the experience this sounds like a communication problem between you and your partner. Most people want to have their partner experience pleasure during sex. Unless they say itâs intentional not to get you off you canât project their intentions onto them. Itâs very likely they might just not know how to pleasure you. They canât read minds and neither can you.Â
Do you see my problem here? This whole idea of people not seeing a sexual partner as a person is fucking mental.Â
Please log off tumblr and read a book.
Very constructive argument.
I canât refute anything that youâre saying! So, Iâm just going to tell you to leave so I donât have to listen to you any more!
Alright.
Letâs be sure we are on the same page before we begin: You claim sexual objectification is a silly concept. How would you define sexual objectification? Please be as detailed as possible, even use examples if you can.
Well itâs a silly concept and so I donât believe in it. So I donât need my own definition but letâs use the one I got when I first looked up this concept and the one that most people seem to use when talking about this. Sexual objectification is the act of treating a person as an instrument of sexual pleasure.Â
And for all the reasons Iâve stated above doesnât really make any sense to describe a normal person with. Normal people donât treat other people like that.Â
Now, if you were going to ask me to describe the concept as a physiological disorder itâs a sexual fetish focused on particular inanimate objects. Which is a a serious mental disorder and doesnât really occur often in humans for obvious reasons.Â
Iâm still put off by you just telling me to leave. If you were really interested in having a conversation itâs counter productive.Â
I also donât know why you are asking for my definition. Itâs very clear what weâre talking about here and you should be able to refute my claims in the above section without needing to come in and ask for a definition. I really hope you donât turn into an Anti Intellectual Demagogue Spouting Pseudo Intellectual Gibberish. Now, while I have yet to determine you are an AIDSPIG. You should have lead with what do you mean by X instead of immediately going into an argument and then telling me to fuck off if you were unsure by what I mean by X. At this point Iâm wary and wondering if you are going to lead me around by the cock arguing over the definition of a word instead of talking about the actual concept here.Â
Well itâs a silly concept and so I donât believe in it. So I donât need my own definition
You do, actually, if you want to actually have a meaningful discussion on it. Why should I bother sitting here discussing a topic with someone who doesnât think they need to define their argument and what it is against?
Your definition is even still bolded from copy/pasting it from google (though you omitted the second half of the google search definition)
If you are incapable of explaining what a topic means to you in your own words, why you are against it, and why you think your argument is important to be heard, I find it extremely unlikely that this is a topic that you actually care about at all.Â
I mean the rest of your post was just complaining about my previous response and complaining about why I asked for your side of the story. You donât even understand that the most important part of a discussion of any kind is that all parties understand eachothers point of view. I ask for your point of view as it was not clear to me, and Iâm âleading you around by the cockâ. Astounding.
Youâre just looking for arguments on Tumblr, arenât you?
Listen thatâs what the definition of the fucking word is. I would rather not get stuck on the definition of words and talk about the actual concept. If you think my definition is wrong then you also need to also define what you mean. If you want it in my own words fine. Sexual objectification is the concept that people use other people only for their sexual gratification with no consideration to what the other party wants. Well guess what again will you address the arguments in the 3 post in this thread because I have no interest at all in arguing over the definitions of words. I have an interest in talking about the concept. You could call it Bloop ferdugle and define it as gropwle gorfun er curld ied. It wouldnât mater cause Iâm interested in the concept not the definition.Â
Iâm against this thing because people seem to find the need to demonize others because of this concept. As Iâve stated I think this is a ridiculous idea that people think a huge amount of the population lacks empathy. It just isnât true. There has to be seriously something wrong in your head to not see another human being as a person.Â
If you go on one more post talking about the definition of a word and bring not other substance to the table I am calling you an AIDSPIG. Again if you didnât know what I meant by X you should have started with what do you mean by X instead of making an argument where you knew exactly what I was talking about with X and then telling me to fuck off. This conversation is spiraling into unproductive meaninglessness.Â
Sexual objectification is the concept that people use other people only for their sexual gratification with no consideration to what the other party wants
Good, so that is the reason you donât think sexual objectification is a thing. In order for your argument to remain valid, I shouldnât be able to state an reasonable or believable scenario in which it does happen.
This is a great example of why you need to clearly state what you are trying to defend, because your definition is so vague that I can easily refute your entire argument with a single word.
Rape. (What the victim wants is not taken into consideration)
There, per your grievance against the existence of sexual objectification, using your own definition of what sexual objectification is, I have proven you are mistaken in assuming it is a silly concept. Better luck next time.
You know sexual objectification doesnât make any sense as a concept. Like itâs not a normal thing to want to have sex with objects. Like thatâs not what evolution has trained us to do. We want to have sex with people because thatâs what our biology states. So, we donât turn people into sex objects. We just turn people into people we want to have sex with.Â
Literal sex objects, fleshlights, vibrators, etc have a single purpose - physical sexual pleasure to the user. When people say sexual objectification, they are implying that the person is being treated as a sex object in that the person is being used for sexual pleasure, and that no other considerations are taken by the âuserâ, while the other person feels as though they were simply used for pleasure and effectively âdiscardedâ as one might do to a literal sex object. The more you know.
Donât we humanize those objects? I mean we make dildos and flesh lights look like the thing weâre trying to emulate. The human body. For the most part Iâll admit Iâve seen some weird stuff but thatâs the exception not the rule. Objectophilia is a real serious mental disorder. Being attracted to objects isnât something that humanâs will do unless there is seriously something wrong. People donât see other people as objects when they want to have sex with them. This is just fundamentally wrong. Sex drive doesnât take away your empathy. You would already have to be fucked up for that to happen.Â
Also I donât think you understand how sex works. If itâs consensual sex then yes the persons feelings do have to be taken into consideration on whether they want sex or not. If itâs not consensual then something is fucked up in the persons head and again this kind of thing isnât normal.Â
If itâs consensual sex and you arenât getting any pleasure out of the experience either tell your partner to stop or tell them that you arenât getting anything out off it. If you feel objectified cause you didnât get any pleasure from the experience this sounds like a communication problem between you and your partner. Most people want to have their partner experience pleasure during sex. Unless they say itâs intentional not to get you off you canât project their intentions onto them. Itâs very likely they might just not know how to pleasure you. They canât read minds and neither can you.Â
Do you see my problem here? This whole idea of people not seeing a sexual partner as a person is fucking mental.Â
Please log off tumblr and read a book.
Very constructive argument.
I canât refute anything that youâre saying! So, Iâm just going to tell you to leave so I donât have to listen to you any more!
Alright.
Letâs be sure we are on the same page before we begin: You claim sexual objectification is a silly concept. How would you define sexual objectification? Please be as detailed as possible, even use examples if you can.
Well itâs a silly concept and so I donât believe in it. So I donât need my own definition but letâs use the one I got when I first looked up this concept and the one that most people seem to use when talking about this. Sexual objectification is the act of treating a person as an instrument of sexual pleasure.Â
And for all the reasons Iâve stated above doesnât really make any sense to describe a normal person with. Normal people donât treat other people like that.Â
Now, if you were going to ask me to describe the concept as a physiological disorder itâs a sexual fetish focused on particular inanimate objects. Which is a a serious mental disorder and doesnât really occur often in humans for obvious reasons.Â
Iâm still put off by you just telling me to leave. If you were really interested in having a conversation itâs counter productive.Â
I also donât know why you are asking for my definition. Itâs very clear what weâre talking about here and you should be able to refute my claims in the above section without needing to come in and ask for a definition. I really hope you donât turn into an Anti Intellectual Demagogue Spouting Pseudo Intellectual Gibberish. Now, while I have yet to determine you are an AIDSPIG. You should have lead with what do you mean by X instead of immediately going into an argument and then telling me to fuck off if you were unsure by what I mean by X. At this point Iâm wary and wondering if you are going to lead me around by the cock arguing over the definition of a word instead of talking about the actual concept here.Â
Well itâs a silly concept and so I donât believe in it. So I donât need my own definition
You do, actually, if you want to actually have a meaningful discussion on it. Why should I bother sitting here discussing a topic with someone who doesnât think they need to define their argument and what it is against?
Your definition is even still bolded from copy/pasting it from google (though you omitted the second half of the google search definition)
If you are incapable of explaining what a topic means to you in your own words, why you are against it, and why you think your argument is important to be heard, I find it extremely unlikely that this is a topic that you actually care about at all.Â
I mean the rest of your post was just complaining about my previous response and complaining about why I asked for your side of the story. You donât even understand that the most important part of a discussion of any kind is that all parties understand eachothers point of view. I ask for your point of view as it was not clear to me, and Iâm âleading you around by the cockâ. Astounding.
Youâre just looking for arguments on Tumblr, arenât you?
You know sexual objectification doesnât make any sense as a concept. Like itâs not a normal thing to want to have sex with objects. Like thatâs not what evolution has trained us to do. We want to have sex with people because thatâs what our biology states. So, we donât turn people into sex objects. We just turn people into people we want to have sex with.Â
Literal sex objects, fleshlights, vibrators, etc have a single purpose - physical sexual pleasure to the user. When people say sexual objectification, they are implying that the person is being treated as a sex object in that the person is being used for sexual pleasure, and that no other considerations are taken by the âuserâ, while the other person feels as though they were simply used for pleasure and effectively âdiscardedâ as one might do to a literal sex object. The more you know.
Donât we humanize those objects? I mean we make dildos and flesh lights look like the thing weâre trying to emulate. The human body. For the most part Iâll admit Iâve seen some weird stuff but thatâs the exception not the rule. Objectophilia is a real serious mental disorder. Being attracted to objects isnât something that humanâs will do unless there is seriously something wrong. People donât see other people as objects when they want to have sex with them. This is just fundamentally wrong. Sex drive doesnât take away your empathy. You would already have to be fucked up for that to happen.Â
Also I donât think you understand how sex works. If itâs consensual sex then yes the persons feelings do have to be taken into consideration on whether they want sex or not. If itâs not consensual then something is fucked up in the persons head and again this kind of thing isnât normal.Â
If itâs consensual sex and you arenât getting any pleasure out of the experience either tell your partner to stop or tell them that you arenât getting anything out off it. If you feel objectified cause you didnât get any pleasure from the experience this sounds like a communication problem between you and your partner. Most people want to have their partner experience pleasure during sex. Unless they say itâs intentional not to get you off you canât project their intentions onto them. Itâs very likely they might just not know how to pleasure you. They canât read minds and neither can you.Â
Do you see my problem here? This whole idea of people not seeing a sexual partner as a person is fucking mental.Â
Please log off tumblr and read a book.
Very constructive argument.
I canât refute anything that youâre saying! So, Iâm just going to tell you to leave so I donât have to listen to you any more!
Alright.
Letâs be sure we are on the same page before we begin: You claim sexual objectification is a silly concept. How would you define sexual objectification? Please be as detailed as possible, even use examples if you can.
You are correct anon. I'm working for a half an hour yet, but I'll amend the response extensively at that time.
You know sexual objectification doesnât make any sense as a concept. Like itâs not a normal thing to want to have sex with objects. Like thatâs not what evolution has trained us to do. We want to have sex with people because thatâs what our biology states. So, we donât turn people into sex objects. We just turn people into people we want to have sex with.Â
Literal sex objects, fleshlights, vibrators, etc have a single purpose - physical sexual pleasure to the user. When people say sexual objectification, they are implying that the person is being treated as a sex object in that the person is being used for sexual pleasure, and that no other considerations are taken by the âuserâ, while the other person feels as though they were simply used for pleasure and effectively âdiscardedâ as one might do to a literal sex object. The more you know.
Donât we humanize those objects? I mean we make dildos and flesh lights look like the thing weâre trying to emulate. The human body. For the most part Iâll admit Iâve seen some weird stuff but thatâs the exception not the rule. Objectophilia is a real serious mental disorder. Being attracted to objects isnât something that humanâs will do unless there is seriously something wrong. People donât see other people as objects when they want to have sex with them. This is just fundamentally wrong. Sex drive doesnât take away your empathy. You would already have to be fucked up for that to happen.Â
Also I donât think you understand how sex works. If itâs consensual sex then yes the persons feelings do have to be taken into consideration on whether they want sex or not. If itâs not consensual then something is fucked up in the persons head and again this kind of thing isnât normal.Â
If itâs consensual sex and you arenât getting any pleasure out of the experience either tell your partner to stop or tell them that you arenât getting anything out off it. If you feel objectified cause you didnât get any pleasure from the experience this sounds like a communication problem between you and your partner. Most people want to have their partner experience pleasure during sex. Unless they say itâs intentional not to get you off you canât project their intentions onto them. Itâs very likely they might just not know how to pleasure you. They canât read minds and neither can you.Â
Do you see my problem here? This whole idea of people not seeing a sexual partner as a person is fucking mental.Â
Please log off tumblr and read a book.
The dynamics of how not-obviously-ironic #killallmen posts on Tumblr work.
Itâs interesting because red and green agree with each other that blue is shit, but red thinks green is blue, and green thinks red is orange.
Thatâs funny, because whenever I see âkill all men!â posts, usually itâs:
1.) Uploaded by someone whoâs a feminist
2.) has feminists whoâre clearly too stupid for their own good agreeing
3.) anti-fems face palming
4.) ârationalâ feminists saying ân-not all feminists are like that!â
Can you show me one? Iâve been looking, canât find one where a bunch of feminists are agreeing with itâŠ.
You canât find a post where feminists are supporting misandry and laughing about kill all men jokes? Blogs with the radfem or misandrist in their bios?Youâre full of fucking shit.
Radfem, yes, Iâve seen them supporting it. Blue in the image represents the radfem.
I canât find a blog where the author is a feminist, following feminist ideals, supporting the killallmen tag.
Again, show me some examples, if they are so easy to find?
sorry but rad fems are still feminists wether you like it ot not so what you said just proves you know feminsts support this shit but ignore it becaue they arent true scotsmen i mean feminists
whether*
it*
feminists*
because*
arenât*
Scotsmen* (?)
Similarly to how ISIS doesnât represent all Muslims, âRad femsâ donât represent all feminists.
Feminism is an ideology, not a group. Radical feminism is also an ideology, not a group. A feminist is someone who subscribes to the ideology of feminism, a rad fem is someone who subscribes to the ideology of radical feminism.
ISIS doesnât represent Muslims
The Westboro Baptist Church doesnât represent Christianity
The anti-feminists who send rape and death threats to feminist bloggers and their families donât represent anti-feminists
Radfems donât represent feminism
Every movement/group has its fringe movements. Donât demand that the main group be held responsible for everything the fringe movements do. They can call them out, declare their opposition and work harder, but there is a limit.
Except radfems are extremely popular and loud mouthed, voicing their opinions over others that share the the feminist title.
In the examples above, radfems are more like ISIS than the WBC. WBC is a tiny minority that is frequently criticized by other Christians, and very few actually agree with them. ISIS is also a minority, but they are not as frequently criticized by their peers and parts of their ideals are actually agreed with by a significant portion of Muslims. Prominent critics are harassed and threatened with the intent to silence them.
If that doesnât sound like feminism today, I donât know what does. The entire ideology is based on breaking down and persecuting men. Anyone that speaks out, that tries to speak for men and against the hate, is attacked and attempts are made to silence them. Feminists might as well be crying âinfidelâ against their critics.
WBC is a tiny minority that is frequently criticized by other Christians....ISIS is also a minority, but they are not as frequently criticized by their peers
