hmm. it's almost like the trope has roots in the history of medical malpractice and eugenics... hmm... wait--
occasionally subtle
"I'm Dorothy Gale from Kansas"
One Nice Bug Per Day
d e v o n
Claire Keane
hello vonnie
Not today Justin
I'd rather be in outer space đž

ellievsbear

â
let's talk about Bridgerton tea, my ask is open

blake kathryn

shark vs the universe
noise dept.
Monterey Bay Aquarium
đ©” avery cochrane đ©”

#extradirty
Sweet Seals For You, Always
taylor price
Lint Roller? I Barely Know Her
seen from United States
seen from South Africa
seen from Brazil
seen from Brazil
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from South Korea
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Spain
seen from Maldives

seen from Malaysia
seen from Australia

seen from Portugal
seen from United States
@lemuel-apologist
hmm. it's almost like the trope has roots in the history of medical malpractice and eugenics... hmm... wait--
eating disorders and abortions are two things that are like, spoken about in most mainstream discourse as though they are pretty rare and aberrant, but then when youâre actually friends with a lot of women you come to find out that they are extremely extremely common and kind of banal & mundane
communication
On Tumblr, pedophiles write thinkpieces on how black trans women are an arm of institutional transmisogynoir because you refuse to platform pedophiles on your political blog...
If the woman that JK rowling posted an upskirt photo of had been a cis woman snopes wouldn't have said this was "mixed" and you know it.
Not that it was necessary, but I looked up definitions, and yeah, obviously "taking a photo under someone's skirt" is literally it. Fuck Snopes so fucking hard. I need them to explain to me how it doesn't fit the definition to a fucking t:
And what the FUCK do they mean, "public setting"?? Yeah, upskirts are mistly taken in public fucking settings! That's not an eycuse, that's part of the fucking issue
And truly what do they mean it was in public? Does that mean that the upskirt photos people take on subways dont count because other people are around? OF COURSE IT WAS IN PUBLIC THATS HOW THE PHOTO GOT TAKEN IF SHE HAD BEEN PHOTOGRAPHED AT HOME IT WOULD HAVE BEEN BREAKING AND ENTERING
what do they mean "it wasn't taken surreptitiously"? there isn't any implication here except that because Freda Wallace was in public, she consented to any pictures that might be taken of her? this is just "look at the way she* was dressed". snopes is doing rape culture.
I want to say something and I mean well but the lack of empathy or visibility for eating disorders comes from nonconformists just as much as conformists and so to even begin discussing the problems with ed culture, you have to be both body neutral and pro autonomy.
Like its not enough to be pro fat, as it pertains to discussing anorexia because you can correctly come to the conclusion that the compulsion is societal while still attacking people for having a mental illness.
It's true the other way around obviously, where people will identify issues with public health and dietary ignorance but go on to attack fat people and the poor for things they already know the root of even subconsciously.
And because of class and privilege, this rather thin line of tact that is being crossed hurts fat people more every time.
And so you have an utmost failure of education and medicine that shames one kind of unhealthy eating and rewards the other. Treating both patterns as synonymous to the classes, fat and skinny.
To be a responsible advocate or mouth piece or to even healthily bring visibility to others with eating disorders you would have to:
Not see fat people as synonym to eating disorders
Not erase fat people with eating disorders
Not reward skinny people for eating disordwrs
Not victim blame people with eating disorders
Not place the majority of balance of trust on skinny people, who are often able bodied and who always have thin privilege, as the highest authority mouthpieces for the issues I'm discussing
One last thing is that an easy remedy for you the reader is to do what people with even half this knowledge ask of you, to separate the perception of bodies with health choices.
But I more specifically think we need to stop discussing eating disorders as dietary health, specifically as failures of dietary health because eating disorders are a compulsory mental illness that can affect the "healthy eaters" those with the privilege and desire to chase healthy food options, who can still have the same MENTAL ILLNESS. Fat average or skinny btw.
Because what I see is that there's a fight against negative perceptions of health rather than a validation and visibility of those who have poor mental or dietary health and its only in text based circles online where I see this trend being completely congruent with people of any body type or school of ethics.
Lack of visibility is isolating, it's erasure, you choose to skirt the name of an overdiscussed truth to make everybody like you look "good or valid" but whats better than being good or valid is for the world to know that you exist, are struggling with exactly what you struggle with and to know that you will be safe whether or not you have the means or desire to change.
Half the backlash to fat lib content essentially boils down to "I can't believe you're FORCING me to not be mean to you"
Thin people are absolutely relentless with this. "But I have to TELL them!" "I can't just not SAY something!" "We can't just PRETEND it's fine to be fat!"
They really seem to think the main reason people are fat is because we're simply drowning in approval and no one has been brave enough to inform us that it's better to not be fat, actually
I genuinely think it's related to what I observe about singleness, virginity, and ace/aro topics: people's entire worldviews are threatened by fat liberation. And having your worldview challenged is scary... especially because so many people have put so, so much personal effort into Not Being Fat, so much self-hate into gaining weight, so much self-denial of food they like and forcing themselves into activities they hate, to avoid being fat.
And fat liberation says "It's okay to be fat!" and fat people say "I'm happy being fat and I don't try to become skinny!"
And it scares people that that is an option. It scares people to think that they have sunk so much time, so much effort, so much misery into avoiding being fat. And this person in front of them is just... not even trying. Rejecting the game. Saying You Don't Have To Do That.
If they accept that they didn't have to do that... then they made themselves so unhappy, for so long, for no reason.
They want their effort, their unhappiness, to have been worth it. To have meant something.
So they have to believe that being fat is wrong, bad, gross, a moral failing, and the only reason anyone would be happy that way is if they just don't know better. Because the other option is to realize and admit that they suffered unnecessarily for years and it meant nothing at all.
Love seeing something from TikTok and going âgirlie that is literally what led to the downfall of the Papal Statesâ
Jewish baby named Edgardo Mortara is seemingly about to die in Bologna, 1851
Catholic nanny secretly baptises him to save his soul, which sheâs not exactly the kind of authority who can do that, but w/e, itâs interpreted by the church as valid later
Kid survives
1857 her secret gets out, a baptising makes a kid a Catholic according to the Church and a Catholic canât be raised in a non-Catholic household in the Papal States, so the church authorises the police to kidnap Edgardo from his family
Raised personally by Pope Pius IX, Jewish family not allowed to take him back due to Church doctrine, this action destroys the family with grief and despair
This case gets international infamy with the Pope not understanding why everyoneâs shiting on him for doing this, including allies
Emperor Napoleon III shifts from opposing Italian unification to supporting it as a direct consequence
Bologna falls the next year, 1859
Kingdom of Italy forms 1861
By 1870 Rome is lost to the Italians and the Papal States are no more
(Edgardo Mortara goes on to become Father Mortara)
(He dies in Belgium in 1940 three months before the Nazis occupied the nation, which if heâd have lived he wouldâve been persecuted as a Jew)
Wikipedia confirms
Fun fact: the Catholic Church did not stop doing this after Edgaro Mortara. During WW2, many Jewish children were put in convents or catholic-run orphanages for their own safety. Sounds nice right? Except after the war ended, when parents or surviving relative went back to claim their children, the church went, âuhhh, actually theyâre catholic now, no take backs!â
The most infamous of these cases was the Finaly affair. Two Jewish children in France, Robert and Gerald Finaly, were placed in a Catholic nursery in 1944 in anticipation of their parents being deported to Auschwitz, where they were both murdered. Their aunt, Marguerite Fischel, survived the war and went to find the boys so she could take them to live with her. However, the nun who had custody of the boys, Antoinette Brun, adamantly refused to give them up, reportedly saying that âThe Jews are not gratefulâ
What followed was a years long custody battle where despite being repeatedly ordered by courts all over Europe to return the boys, Brun took them to many different countries and hid them, with the support and help of other nuns and priests. It was suspected at the time, and later confirmed by documents released in 2020, that Pope Pius XII had supported the effort to keep the boys away from their surviving family and have them be raised Catholic.
Thankfully, after negotiations between a sympathetic cardinal in France and the chief Rabbi of Paris, the boys were finally recovered and reunited with their aunt.
Documents reveal the private discussions behind both Pope Pius XIIâs silence about the Nazi deportation of Romeâs Jews in 1943 and the Vatic
I wish I could say that the phenomenon of the Catholic Church kidnapping children and keeping them away from their families for the purposes of forcefully raising them Catholic is unique to Jews, but itâs not. From the mid nineteenth century to the mid twentieth century, the Church ran hundreds of residential schools in the US and Canada where indigenous children were kidnapped from their homes and forced into these cruel and inhumane âschoolsâ. The children were forbidden from speaking their own languages or practicing their own cultures and religions, their hair was cut, and they were subject to emotional, verbal, spiritual, physical, and sexual abuse. Many of the children died due to malnutrition or medical neglect, their bodies buried like dogs beside the schools. The Catholic Church was not the only Church to participate in this, but theyâve been the most reluctant to fully acknowledge and apologize for it. It was only in 2022 that Pope Francis apologized on behalf of the Catholic Church for their part, but some people found the apology inadequate.
Idk what my point is here, just that thereâs such a clean link between evangelizing, cultural/religious imperialism, and how damaging and horrifying a religion can be when it is thoroughly convinced of its own superiority. And that unless an institution is forced to change, it probably wonât change on its own.
of all the faiths in the world i had to be born into the one with dallin h oaks
i know im not unique in this experience, don't get me wrong; it's just hard not to feel like i exist on the fringes of groups i ostensibly and inarguably belong to. it's not enough for other people to act like i'm infringing for being present or even extant; i do it to myself, like a compulsive self-rejection before anyone else can do it. and i suppose that's one of the big things, right? one of the ultimate unknowns? not knowing where i stand? not knowing how other people feel about me unless they make it explicitly clear?
i find myself asking "what counts?" more than i should. this, of course, is one of the disorders talking, in pure rumination (boo, hiss), but of course knowing that doesn't stop me from thinking it. i think it far less these days, thank god, but it's something that has dominated my psyche for so long.
what counts as disabled? what counts as queer? what counts as asthmatic? what counts as severe uterine cramping? what counts as fainting? am i doing it right? is it co-opting disability for me to worry that im not fainting normally, even though im doing it a lot, including at inopportune times? if im not allergic to the actual food, but a protein in the food that my body reacts to because it thinks that it's one of the pollens i'm more severely allergic to, then does it count as a food allergy? does it count as an allergy if it's not anaphylaxis? does it count? does it count? where do i fit? is it okay if im just here to help? i don't really count.
god, is it not exhausting to live that way? rather-- it is. like no matter what i do, who i am, how i express the sentiment, it will not be enough. a more sane me would insist that i know how best to describe myself in a definitionally-correct and confident way; that I'm worrying about nothing; that this is irrational; but that irrational thought kept me from participating fully in my own life for so long and still has a severe hold on me in some of my worst, lowest moments.
i know im not unique in this experience, don't get me wrong; it's just hard not to feel like i exist on the fringes of groups i ostensibly and inarguably belong to. it's not enough for other people to act like i'm infringing for being present or even extant; i do it to myself, like a compulsive self-rejection before anyone else can do it. and i suppose that's one of the big things, right? one of the ultimate unknowns? not knowing where i stand? not knowing how other people feel about me unless they make it explicitly clear?
one day we will defeat hoarding. but not right now because starting that sort of endeavor at this time of night is an awful idea.
even if somehow it turned out they were right (in regards to cemetery-wolfdog), i am not not letting all of them off the hook in regards of how they treated lemuel-apologist. i am not gonna just ignore how nasty of eden it was, to accuse her of supporting incest. i am not gonna ignore how both wokerevolverocelot and strawberrycheesecakehare are trying to create a narrative of me "attacking" eden for calling out this behavior. i will not forget who you all truly are. neither should other people.
I sent Chee an ask with proof that Eden was given context about Cemetery/Lemuel's reblog that ended up becoming the proship adjacent accusation (it was about twin peaks among other things)
lemuel-apologist/814968276461486080/yeah-i-wasnt-talking-about-literal-rpf-i-was?source=share
Eden didn't acknowledge it or retract their words
Chee didn't post the ask with proof, curious. I mean, at least that part of the conflict could've been avoided if Eden just answered they didn't agree with those topics even if being explored in a horror setting without being romanticized, but I guess hiding and letting others fight was the way to go
They can't acknowledge the evidence that they're wrong because it would make them look bad and force them to confront the fact that they're capable of being wrong
I know this is old, but I wanted to add the context of what the link would have led to, given it's dead now (my bad), for anyone looking at this in retrospect. I'll put it under a read-more so that it doesn't clog everything up for everyone.
the shoddily-boxed-in portion is the screenshot of a post from my main blog; this is the entirety of what i said at the outset of things.
based based based based based based based based based based based based
Nicholas Lampert