❣ Chile in a Photography ❣
ellievsbear
if i look back, i am lost
pixel skylines
Show & Tell
roma★
Peter Solarz
trying on a metaphor
Cosmic Funnies
Keni
styofa doing anything
Acquired Stardust
Jules of Nature
Discoholic 🪩
No title available
No title available
祝日 / Permanent Vacation
Misplaced Lens Cap
cherry valley forever
shark vs the universe
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Germany
seen from T1
seen from Netherlands
seen from Australia
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Kazakhstan
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Türkiye
seen from Canada
seen from United States
seen from United Kingdom
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from South Korea
@organicmolecule
watching porn is media consumption, not an extension of one’s sexuality. if your sexuality is defined by the products you consume and therefore consider any criticism of the porn industry an attack on your sexual freedoms, you have some serious work to do on yourself.
there are only two phenomena in reality that the "split attraction model" makes sense for: "___romantic asexual," of course, and "heteroromantic bisexual."
i know "born this way" is a sacred cow but hear me out. I think a substantial portion of the "bisexual" population is naturally heterosexual with separate fetishistic attraction to the same sex that developed later.
There are men who report never having wanted to have sex with men until they went down porn rabbit holes and developed fetishes (e.g. being anally penetrated as a "sissy," degrading a "sissy," being degraded and made to worship "BBC") and still have no attraction to men outside these narrow scenarios. "Straight" men on Grindr who don't want to kiss or date men aren't saying so out of shame; it's because it would actually feel repulsive to them. Same with women like me who can get aroused by sexualized female bodies but only ever fantasize about having boyfriends, not girlfriends; we've been conditioned to associate female bodies with sexy and naughty and exciting but can't catch feelings for women beyond friendship.
if someone claimed to be "biromantic heterosexual," I'd be inclined to believe she's not really attracted to women and is just affection-starved and drawn to the ~sweet soft sapphic~ aesthetic. Her fullest attraction is clearly reserved for men and a woman would deserve better than to be in a relationship without her genuine sexual attraction.
indescribable rage toward not-kid-friendly stuff in public. keep your sexual bumper stickers and adult tshirts and whatever the fuck else in your own house. imagine feeling comfortable going to the grocery store wearing a big sexual thing on your shirt. do you have no conscience or no self awareness, it's one or the other. scum
Anti-abortion groups helped write and pass laws that kicked in to ban abortion when Roe v. Wade was overturned. The groups see Tennessee’s b
They are actually going after IVF.
This is not a surprise, if you have been paying attention.
very smart abortion proponents: "IVF clinics discard fertilized embryos, so if y'all are against abortion because life begins at conception, shouldn't you be trying to stop IVF?"
abortion opponents: *try to stop IVF*
abortion proponents: "i can't believe it!!! this can't be happening!!!"
Just a friendly reminder: these are the types of people who want a “pandemic amnesty”. Never forget what’s really in their hearts.
this sounds harsh but I really wonder how many male transitioners who insist "I get along better with girls" really just didn't have many peers interact with them except out of pity and general politeness, which girls/women, being higher in agreeableness, are more apt to do. Living as visibly trans, the ratio of "attention from friendly pitying women" to "genuine male companionship" is skewed even further, which just reinforces the "I'm really meant to be a woman" belief. Meanwhile, the social deficits that kept them isolated among their own sex remain unaddressed
Buying overpriced quartz from a New Age shop in hopes that it will ~heal~ you isn’t really all that different from giving money to a Christian televangelist faith healer for the same reasons, imo. A scam that flavors itself as feminist and countercultural is still a scam.
tbh if anything the televangelist has a stronger case, in the Russel’s Teapot sense where we can’t actually prove this guy doesn’t talk directly to God. but the crystal healer people are making claims about Energies and Vibrations, which are like, physical things, which you’d be able to measure. If the crystals were actually vibrating, that would be heat!
We spent the 20th century figuring out everything about minerals with Energies And Vibrations and can say with some confidence that Energies And Vibrations coming from rocks is Bad For You, Actually.
“being kind takes zero effort” Lies.
Being kind takes enormous effort. Being kind means humbling yourself- it means saying no to your pride- it means forgiving someone instantly- it means putting someone convenience over your own for some time- it means acting as if the universe doesn’t revolve around you. Being kind is hard. Being kind is not butterflies and sickly sweet, half-witted compliments. It’s work. It’s serving others. It’s being silent when you don’t want to. It’s being honest. It’s being gentle. It’s being true even if the other person disagrees. Being kind is one of the hardest things a person can do and we need more of it.
Aslan really does teach us the beauty of being loved by Someone who is more than just “nice” to us and who expects more from us than the bare minimum. By turns and when appropriate, Aslan is disappointed or gently stern or even angry. He brings challenge and danger and change far more than comfort and he’ll make you squirm far more often than make you “feel good” and yet no one’s presence or attention or love means more or is more precious. I’m—
the trads are going to have to come up with a better argument than "you'd rather serve your employer who doesn't care for you than serve your husband at home?" because it unravels pretty quickly and i say this as someone who wants to be a homemaker.
I want to remind everyone that when I pulled out the receipts from the worldbank website showing that Poland had ridiculous low pregnancy death stats while having abortion policies stricter than the USA, that pro choicer I was interacting with said that it was because..... *brace yourselves* 🌻"Polish women were healthier"☺️
By the same logic, I do hope we pro lifers are allowed to argue the reason women die of childbirth is because they "aren't healthy" to brush it off and totally deflect from this reality 🙃 deal?
I don't like being called "cisgender" for the same reason I don't like when MAP advocates refer to non-pedophiles as "teleiophiles." It frames the narrative as "people with the more common trait vs. people with the less common trait," a group that happens to be the majority ganging up against a group that happens to be the minority, instead of normalcy vs. deviancy.
many such cases, sad
i really hate that cyberpunk as a genre has become popular among people that basically have the media literacy of a middle schooler and think that the robot parts are just ✨neat aesthetic lul ✨ and would gladly get rocket launchers put in their ass so they can be a walking mech even though one of the biggest points on cyberpunk is the idea of cyberpsychosis is a common topic which is basically a mental illness caused by the overload of cybernetic augmentations to someone's body.
please get the fuck out the genre. criticizing cybernetics has nothing to do with trans or disabled people unless you're the kinda person that'll just get wolverine fingers just because HAHAHA SO FUNNY YES I WOULD DO THIS
Please tumblerize some other genre.
I don’t think they get the whole “cult of the machine” aspect of cyberpunk. It’s not about someone who lost a limb regaining an arm through cybernetics. They had already lost a limb so they didn’t give up something for it. It’s about someone having to get their own perfectly fine and functioning arms amputated and replaced in the name of performance.
Imagine a person who works at a job that requires heavy lifting. In order to keep his job he has to get his arms replaced because he can’t keep up otherwise. Now when he hugs his daughter he can’t feel it the way he did before and she complains how it is uncomfortable.
Once you buy into the cult of the machine it is no longer about people or freedom, people are reduced to performance and upgrades... except for the wealthy elite.
If you want to do cyberpunk aesthetic without all the philosophical stuff associated with it Transhumanist SF is the genre you’re looking for. And, to be frank, I prefer it cause (no pun intended) its fucking metal.
The philosophical aspects of cyberpunk are essential to the genre, and to be perfectly frank if they don’t occur within a piece of media it shouldn’t be called as such.
It's alright if you like the concept or the aesthetic of artificial limbs or unique prosthetics or amplifying augmentations. But understand that Cyberpunk as a genre is about dehumanisation, the commodification of life wherein the right yo humanness can only be afforded by those with money or authority. Leaving those who are poor and even regular people to pawn off their humanity one scrap at a time to just survive.
If you don't want the deeper philosophical aspects and commentary boiled into Cyberpunk as a genre, you can always just pen a scifi story where technological augmentation is commonplace. But the link between physical wholeness, the ability to connect with others and oneself are directly connected to the state of one's body are central tentpoles of the genre. Without them, it isn't a Cyberpunk story
Robert Serling Voice: Wouldn’t it be fucked up if people in the future willingly submitted themselves to the wealthy elite and had their bodies permanently changed to fit a new standard of normalcy, undergoing these procedures down by corporations posing as healthcare professionals actively breaking the Hippocratic Oath?
The exact people doing this very thing in the modern age: What do you mean fucked up?
I was pretty skeptical about the figures, since they contradict what I usually hear on the media, so I did a little research. Here’s what I found: (Sorry this is so US centric) (I’ll also try to stay close to primary sources as possible)
(http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6308a1.htm?s_cid=ss6308a1_e)
- the 12 months before taking the survey, an estimated 4.0% of women experienced some form of physical violence by an intimate partner -an estimated 14.2% of women experienced some form of psychological aggression in the 12 months preceding the survey. -*4,774,000 women have been victims of physical violence by intimate partner in the 12 months preceding the survey -*17,091,000 women have been victims of psychological aggression by intimate partner in the 12 months preceding the survey
- the 12 months before taking the survey, an estimated 4.8% of men experienced some form of physical violence by an intimate partner -an estimated 18.0% of men experienced some form of psychological aggression in the 12 months preceding the survey. -*5,452,000 men have been victims of physical violence by intimate partner in the 12 months preceding the survey -*20,471,000 men have been victims of psychological aggression by intimate partner in the 12 months preceding the survey
*Table 6
By the data presented by the Center for Disease Control, out of the estimate of 10,226,000 yearly victims of intimate partner violence, 53.3% of victims where male and 46.6% were female. As for psychological aggression, out of the estimate of 37,562,000 yearly victims, 54.4% were male and 45.5% were female. These statistics would support the claim made in the bottom left.
Now I couldn’t find a primary source for the 70% of DV is initiated by women, but here’s the facts that I found, which may have been interpreted by the people who made this poster:
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/glenn-sacks/researcher-says-womens-in_b_222746.html) -Women who were in a battered women’s shelter, 67% of the women reported severe violence toward their partner in the past year.
This can be interpreted as “67% of violent couples with IPV is mutual”. But then again, primary sources and full data would be helpful to back up this claim.
But the one that is most interesting is:(http://psychnews.psychiatryonline.org/newsArticle.aspx?articleid=111137)(Another report analysis from the CDC)
-23.9% of relationships are violent -50.3% of IPV is non-reciprocal and 49.7% is reciprocal (Reciprocal IPV= Mutual violence) -70.7% of non-reciprocal IPV is initiated by women.
So summing up the numbers, it’s not that 70% of all DV is initiated by women, its that 70% of non-reciprocal DV is initiated by women. To go further would say that 49.7% of DV is mutual, 36.2% of DV is initiated by women, and 14.5% of DV is initiated by men
Male victims of domestic violence are real. They are hurting. And they often don’t get the attention and compassion they so urgently deserve and need.
Have a heart. Open your mind, and give a care.
Hm. These numbers are all so different to anything I’ve seen before. I’m reblogging and liking this both for my own reference and to spread these numbers to others. I’m definitely gonna look into this and see if I can find more sources and more information.
Mother fuckers can we all just say let’s not be dicks to our fucking love ones already?
Tagging this for my speech project that I need the sources for
Here are 221 studies on IPV / DV for y’all.
You are a life saver.
That list is good, but outdated. I e-mailed the researcher who compiled that list a couple weeks ago and he gave me three different documents. I uploaded them to this dropbox folder. You can go there and download them.
The list of studies is now up to 343 scholarly investigations (270 empirical studies and 73 reviews). Not only did he send me that list, but he also sent me two meta-studies (also in the dropbox folder). One is on male/female perpetration rates and the other is on male/female victimization rates.
There is also “Rates of Bi-directional versus Uni-directional Intimate Partner Violence Across Samples, Sexual Orientations, and Race/Ethnicities: A Comprehensive Review“. It’s a mouthful to be sure. Basically this study took the data from 48 other empirical studies, collated the data, placed it online for public viewing, submitted it for peer review, and was found to be accurate.
It’s findings basically wind down to this:
84% of relationships are non-violent
58% of relationships that are violent, both partners abuse the other.
28% of violent relationships only the woman is violent
14% of violent relationships only the man is violent.
This is featured Partner Abuse State of Knowledge Project website and is part of a much larger DV research project. You can read the summarized findings here or take a gander at the full 61-page review. This is a compilation of the research of Erin Pizzey, Murray Strauss, Don Dutton, and many others who are challenging the feminist model of patriarchal dominance. They also have some videos that are very informative as well.
Murray Strauss also compiled: Thirty Years of Denying the Evidence on Gender Symmetry in Partner Violence: Implications for Prevention and Treatment. A report detailing the existence of over 200 studies showing gender symmetry in victimization rates. Studies that show symmetry going as far back as 1975. He also examines the methods feminist researchers have used to suppress the evidence from public discourse, hence the title “Thirty Years of Denying the Evidence”.
Two other excellent and brief videos on the topic come from the MenAreGood YouTube channel:
Male Victims of Domestic Violence - The Hidden Story
Bias Against Men and Boys in Mental Health Research
I really need to write up a solo reference post for domestic violence data…
You are also a life saver.
Wow. I thought it would be way lower for men, and far higher for women. I thought it would be like, 90/10 instead of a slight majority to men.
Men are the more violent sex, to the point that domestic violence against wives is normal in some cultures, and we're expected to believe this is equal?
If you think trump will do better in 2024 than he did in 2020 after this red wedding of an election than you are a fool and beyond saving.
