Re:Pulsed

The Once and Future Dick

THE VERY FIRST STAR TREK SLASH FIC PUBLISHED

“A Fragment out of Time”, published in 1974. Kirk / Spock. page 1 page 2

I had to share it with you because I can’t stop laughing, and every time I reread it it just gets funnier and fUNNIER

[catbountry]

This fan fiction is older than the push-through tabs on soda cans.

[cylonqueen]

Your grandma wrote this on her Commodore 64.

[strike-team-delta]

I miss my Commodore 64

[stoplookingup]

Oh my dear, sweet children. The Commodore 64 came out in 1982. This was produced on a typewriter and probably mimeographed. And while it may seem funny now, it took more courage to write and distribute this than you will ever  know.

[athelind]

Reblogged for that last comment.

[gokuma]

respect your elders

[ohfreckle]

Children, in the olden days fanfiction was written on a typewriter, copied and sent by snail mail. Getting one one of those letters from across the world was every bit as exciting as getting a notification that your favorite writer posted a new fic.

[berlynn-wohl]

It’s been said before, but the fact that this fic begins with the dialogue assertion “We’re by no means setting a precedent” is endlessly amusing to me.

Diane Marchant changed all our lives. May she rest in peace.

[prokopetz]

The precedent line is especially amusing when you bear in mind that “A Fragment Out of Time” is not only the first Star Trek slashfic to be published in a widely distributed magazine: it’s believed by some to be the first slashfic of any kind to be widely published.

[ralfmaximus]

In 1974 it was illegal to send pornography through the USPS. So distributing fic like this via mailed newsletter was literally dangerous. And they knew it.

[laughoutloud-club]

[catchymemes]

Man secrets

#1

#2

#3

#4

#5

#6

#7

#8

#9

#10

#11

#12

#13

#14

#15

#16

#17

#18

#19

#20

[nonenosome2]

For 3 I would say women spending decades telling us, “Oh my god. Can’t a woman be nice without you thinking we want you?”, and then filming and shaming any man that thought something was a hint when it wasn’t, might also have something to do with it.

[ketchuplaser]

[free-my-mindd]

[wyrm-boy]

[decemberwinter]

maybe if you’re not a feminist then you’re just a misogynist and like… I don’t think there’s any “in between”. because feminism is not hating men. feminism is not thinking men deserve less than women. feminism is not rooting for manipulative females. feminism is not thinking abusive women should not face any consequences if their victims are men. feminism is not girlboss. feminism is not women superior. feminism is the belief that men and women are equal, so if you’re not a feminist then I think it’s safe to assume you think women deserve less than men, and that sounds misogynistic to me idk

[alexsharp00]

Ps: if they think feminism is not equality and instead “women over men”. That’s the biggest red flag of misogyny/sexism there can be.

No, this isn’t about men specifically. Not all men are pigs, just like not all women are sluts. The patriarchy teaches men that being pigs is beneficial just as it pushes women into only being seen sexually. The patriarchy (power imbalance) was always the problem.

[siryouarebeingmocked]

>Ps: if they think feminism is not equality and instead “women over men”. That’s the biggest red flag of misogyny/sexism there can be.

Does that include the radfems who explicitly say that's what feminism is?

>The patriarchy teaches men that being pigs is beneficial just as it pushes women into only being seen sexually.

The same patriarchy that had men fighting duels to the death over disrespecting women? And expected men to protect and support women with their lives?

The same society that tells men to respect women even when it's not for sexual purposes? Including complete strangers?

The same patriarchy that lets feminism and women's advocates exist and exercise considerable power around the world, including in the UN?

The same patriarchy that favors women over men in child custody cases for over a century, often by policy?(EG the Tender Years Doctrine, which was created by a feminist)

The same patriarchy that generally ignores any form of sexual assault or hassament that isn't Male-on-Female? Again, sometimes by law? (EG the UK says a woman can't "rape" a man unless she penetrates him with her penis)

According to feminism, any group made up mostly of men can be assumed to be misogynist by default. And possibly the result of sexism against women. No matter the time, place, or circumstance.

Apparently the Patriarchy is so powerful and universal it's essentially genetic.

Oddly enough, feminists generally either ignore groups dominated by women, or go to great lengths to explain why women's prejudice against men is justified (EG Man Vs Bear, Shrodinger's Rapist, Poisoned M+Ms, etc.).

Of course, if feminists did say movements dominated by women are inherently sexist and wrong, it would have to take a good hard look at itself, wouldn't it?

[re-jet-irony]

No, there is no "in between" because feminism does not hold a monopoly on equality and there are myriad beliefs and systems outside feminism. Feminism itself is a collection of various stances and viewpoints, many of which do not agree with each other.

In fact, it's sexist as hell to claim that a woman's only option is to embrace feminism or be branded with "internalized misogyny."

[evergreen-femme]

on twitter they're saying if you like strap you're not a real lesbian

what the fuck is happening why is everyone getting 200% more conservative and insane in real time

[closet-keys]

[saintofpride201]

Because TERFs are a cult dedicated to making the female experience as miserable as possible and then blaming men for it.

[beardedmrbean]

Next up someone is going to claim that the Narnia series isn't kids books.

Kids books is probably not the best way to word it, you can enjoy them at every age, including your childhood, as you get older you may find new truths in them, but they're still good for any age.

[cookingwithroxy]

I want you to understand this. I NEED you to understand this. My mother read me the hobbit as bedtime story, and I started pushing myself to read before pre-school so I could in fact read the hobbit for myself instead of having to wait for bedtime.

I didn't do so right away but jesus wept I PUSHED myself to learn to read SPECIFICALLY so I could read The Hobbit! It is, in fact, a children's story! And children only see page count as 'there is a lot of this fun story to read!'

[deadpowol]

[tahthetrickster]

[yorgen-sh]

[theraptorcage]

Snowy Owl

[thegrindragon]

i felt compelled

[coyoteobsessed]

[tonsimonsi]

Need some fables AESOP

[saintofpride201]

Gonna run some to you real quick

[saintofpride201]

Sorry, took a nap under a tree.

[kunaigirl]

just casually leaving this here for no particular reason

[kunaigirl]

You know what? Fuck it I'm adding more context. Sesame Street has talked about the topic of death more than once and it's done with such gentle carefulness without watering down or censoring the heaviness of the situations. It treats heavy subject matter with respect and dignity and has been for DECADES. From the early 1980s:

To 2025:

Hell, they even cover the devastating heaviness of MASS SHOOTINGS without censoring or watering anything down.

They've been doing this for YEARS, and it's ALWAYS handled with dignity, respect, seriousness, understanding, and love.

Whenever I see people censoring words because it "might offend" someone or the big ad companies that are currently trying to run everything? I just want to say to them: "What? Is Sesame Street too mature for you?" Because really...what the hell are we doing.

[pancake-surprise]

Mister Roger's Neighborhood also covered difficult topics with respect, age-appropriately, and without pulling a single punch. It's crazy that we've worked ourselves up so much that we're self-censoring like it's always been the norm.

This clip is from 1968 and discussed assassination after Bobby Kennedy died.

I'm not sure when this clip originally aired, but it was likely sometime in the 1980s. They talk about murder and, incredibly by today's standards, what sort of emotions (anger, fear, loneliness) might drive someone to hurt or kill other people + how we can manage our own difficult or painful feelings.

[rosslynpaladin]

The ability to talk about hard and awful things

is the ability to process these things.

taking away the words for bad things

means when they HAPPEN- and bad things will still happen around us-

WE CAN'T TALK ABOUT THEM without the WORDS.

When the word is accurate, USE THE WORD. Say Death. Say Murder. Say Rape. Say Prison, say Riots, say War, Say Famines and Disease. Say Bigotry. Say Hate crime. Say Racism. Say Fascism. Say Abuse. Say Hurt. Say Pain. Say Grief. Say Fear.

We must not lose the Truth of what a word means.

All of these things need to be talked about. Do Not GIVE UP YOUR WORDS.

[quietwingsinthesky]

sometimes you guys call characters comphet lesbians in a way that makes it clear you’re just uncomfortable with bisexuals existing

[supreme-leader-stoat]

There's this recurring argument in certain circles and especially on tumblr that posing a risk to someone actively victimizing you in some way is always unacceptable, but particularly if it's 'disproportionate.' If someone breaks into your house and gets shot, that's disproportionate because they 'probably' weren't going to physically injure you (worse if they weren't themselves armed with a firearm, how dare you engage in an 'unfair' fight). If a mugger gets killed because their victim fights back that's disproportionate because how dare you value someone's life over the contents of your wallet. If a woman stabs her would-be rapist and he bleeds to death that's disproportionate because 'rape lasts a few minutes, death is permanent.' If someone's harassing you by smashing your mailbox and wrecks their own arm after you reinforce it that's disproportionate because hey, it's not like they broke your arm, just your possessions.

And I feel like an alien every time I encounter this sort of thing, because it's so antithetical to any kind of logic or self-consistent ethical framework I can wrap my brain around. It's taking the genuine virtues of mercy and valuing human life and blowing them out of proportion into grotesque parodies of themselves. The victim here is not the one responsible for the ultimate outcome.

Does that mean that we should approach everything with infinite escalation forever? Hell no! But that doesn't change that almost all 'disproportionate' escalation the victim performs is dwarfed by the act of trying to harm an innocent victim in the first place! If I take the 'total violence' of a situation from a 1 to a 3, I've tripled it, but if I take a previously non-violent situation and amp it up from 0.00000000001 to 1, I've scaled it by an insane degree that makes that factor of three look minuscule despite technically being a lesser net increase.

And it's never even applied consistently! The victim has agency and is responsible for their role in escalating things, but the aggressor isn't held to the same standard. They're infantilized, they're treated like an automaton, the damage they do is treated like a foregone conclusion when the entire situation could have been avoided by them simply not going out of their way to hurt someone else. Is the victim's choice to react when backed into a corner somehow less predictable than the attacker's choice to harm someone unprovoked?

[rosecorcoranwrites]

Body Horror and Internalized Misogyny

This post showed up in my "for you" feed, and I commented that 63% of people have internalized misogyny, to which two other people asked how being afraid of getting pregnant was misogynistic, so I thought I would explain.

First, the option that the majority of people voted on was this: Pregnancy "sounds like unreal terrifying body horror". Not just something scary or dangerous, but body horror. So lets talk about that first.

Body horror comes from taking something normal and natural about the body and twisting it. Putting teeth where there should not be teeth. Grafting dozens of arms onto every part of the body. Faces in odd places. Limbs bending the wrong direction. Think Dark Souls et al.

Now, one could try to describe normal bodily processes as horrifying, but I wouldn't call this body horror. Take puberty, and all the crazy things your body goes through during it, or describe exactly how each organ keeps you alive in detail. Or take "Skeletons", by Ray Bradbury. This is a horror story in which a man feels aches in his bones and becomes convinces that his skeleton--all skeletons--are some form of Other, some entity inside people that is trying to get out. He describes seeing his wife's skeleton peering out of her mouth each time she smiles, and seeing the shape of people's bones poking out just below the skin.

The thing about this story is that the skeleton is not actually what is horrifying, but rather the man's phobia of the skeleton. It's one of those stories where the protagonist is clearly not in his right mind. It only veers into body horror once the inhuman doctor that first stoked his fears into a phobia shows up and sucks the skeleton out of the man, leaving a gasping, jelly-like mass with nothing to hold it up.

Body horror inherently comes from something being unnatural, something a body is not supposed to have or be able to do.

If one were to view a racial trait, such as more or less body hair, darker or lighter skin, or the presence or absence of epicanthic folds as horrifying, we would call that person racist. If they viewed their own racial traits as horrifying, we wold call that internalized racism.

So now we can circle back to pregnancy. True, pregnancy can be dangerous and scary, and one's body goes through some pretty crazy changes during and after it, but it's also something that female bodies have evolved to be able to do. The potential to become pregnant--the specific gametes and organs and hormones--is literally what makes a body female, at least for placental mammals like humans. Pregnancy is a normal, natural, uniquely and definitively female biological process.

You don't have to want to get pregnant, and it's totally fine to be scared about being pregnant. But to treat it as something unnatural, or as the original poll said, as "unreal terrifying body horror" is to see the capabilities of the female body as somehow Other and alien and twisted. That is misogyny. When women view our own bodies this way, it's internalized misogyny.