Sea Change, Rich and Strange

Hi. I am your average silly dreamer. Feminism~Shakespeare~Crystals~Magical Girl~Ghosts~Hiking~Nature

[oscarwetnwilde]

Oscar Wilde’s accent and word pronunciation written down by an audience member.

[itswilderthanoscar]

This is golden

[nuggles]

favorite trope: the very important hand touch in period dramas

[leradny]

*begrudgingly reblogs while grumbling* this is exactly my aesthetic

[jujutherubberduckie]

That last one is FRISKY. I literally leaned back a little. BOTH HANDS? And that gentle glide over the top before the clasp? -fans self-

[scottyottyotty]

How dare you put this kinky hand holding on my dash? That little grope at the end was TOO MUCH

[hotdogsngiggles]

i seriously fainted at that last one. where are your gloves people! is this pornhub?

[honeygordo]

walked past a group of older women leaving the synagogue as i was heading in and just heard one of them saying “lesbians are the chosen people”

[gahdamnpunk]

This needs to be a nationwide initiative!

[sonneillonv-deactivated20220218]

I’m glad to see that they’re being fairly paid for the work.

[renee-niles]

I honestly sighed in relief when I saw it was $15 an hour. Good on San Jose.

[harmony-happiness]

[yunosknife]

GM.

[satanlovesmesoo-deactivated2014]

[mellowmodesty]

wow this is fucking historic as fuck i can’t believe im seeing this

[gingah-ninjah]

fucking love

[dailysailormoon]

Remember….

That’s right…We’re guardians! The four guardians that protect the princess!

[betterthanabortion]

“My body, my choice” only makes sense when someone else’s life isn’t at stake.

[fandomsandfeminism]

Fun fact: If my younger sister was in a car accident and desperately needed a blood transfusion to live, and I was the only person on Earth who could donate blood to save her, and even though donating blood is a relatively easy, safe, and quick procedure no one can force me to give blood. Yes, even to save the life of a fully grown person, it would be ILLEGAL to FORCE me to donate blood if I didn’t want to.

See, we have this concept called “bodily autonomy.” It’s this….cultural notion that a person’s control over their own body is above all important and must not be infringed upon. 

Like, we can’t even take LIFE SAVING organs from CORPSES unless the person whose corpse it is gave consent before their death. Even corpses get bodily autonomy. 

To tell people that they MUST sacrifice their bodily autonomy for 9 months against their will in an incredibly expensive, invasive, difficult process to save what YOU view as another human life (a debatable claim in the early stages of pregnancy when the VAST majority of abortions are performed) is desperately unethical. You can’t even ask people to sacrifice bodily autonomy to give up organs they aren’t using anymore after they have died. 

You’re asking people who can become pregnant to accept less bodily autonomy than we grant to dead bodies. 

[albinwonderland]

reblogging for commentary 

[generalmaluga]

But, assuming the mother wasn’t raped, the choice to HAVE a baby and risk sacrificing their “bodily autonomy” is a choice that the mother made. YOu don’t have to have sex with someone. Cases of rape aside, it isn’t ethical to say abortion is justified. The unborn baby has rights, too. 

[fandomsandfeminism]

First point: Bodily autonomy can be preserved, even if another life is dependent on it. See again the example about the blood donation. 

And here’s another point: When you say that “rape is the exception” you betray something FUNDAMENTALLY BROKEN about your own argument.

Because a fetus produced from sexual assault is biologically NO DIFFERENT than a fetus produced from consensual sex. No difference at all.

If one is alive, so is the other. If one is a person, so is the other. If one has a soul, then so does the other. If one is a little blessing that happened for a reason and must be protected, then so is the other. 

When you say that “Rape is the exception” what you betray is this: It isn’t about a life. This isn’t about the little soul sitting inside some person’s womb, because if it was you wouldn’t care about HOW it got there, only that it is a little life that needs protecting.

When you say “rape is the exception” what you say is this: You are treating pregnancy as a punishment. You are PUNISHING people who have had CONSENSUAL SEX but don’t want to go through a pregnancy. People who DARED to have consensual sex without the goal of procreation in mind, and this is their “consequence.” 

And that is gross. 

[thekaraokeninja]

^ THIS. This is this this THIS THIS THIS. THIS!!!!!

[updatepls-deactivated20180722]

This is probably the strongest and well worded/supported argument for abortion that I have ever read.

[boymercuryx]

Absolutely. As vile as the “no exception for rape” people are, at least they’re consistent. These other fuckers actually think pregnancy should be an enforced punishment for sex.

Funny how they don’t apply that reasoning to other “choices”. They don’t say Oh yeah you can’t have bypass surgery because you chose to eat fat and not exercise. Or You chose to drive without a seatbelt so you can’t get your smashed body treated after a crash. Fuck, most of medicine is about correcting for people’s choices, but anti choicers believe sex choices are magical because of their trashy gutter religion.

[belf-on-the-shelf]

Also fertility treatments usually destroy loads of embryos, but pro-lifers don’t protest fertility clinics because those women are destroying embryos for a reason they approve of. 

[thisbibliomaniac]

We absolutely do protest those, and there are people who adopt embryos.

[secretariatess]

Blood transfusion and organ donating are optional things that can save lives.

Abortion is actively getting rid of a life.

You aren’t responsible for murder by opting out of the first two- you were not responsible for the accident or disease that would require the need of organs/blood from another person.

But by having an abortion, that is actively removing a life.  You aren’t withholding something you can donate.  You’re getting rid of a life for your own sake.

[fandomsandfeminism]

You’re trapped by the trolley debate. The idea that allowing someone to die through inaction is morally different than actively causing a death.

Which is…shakey. And debatable. And also doesnt address the central point of bodily autonomy.

If I woke up in a hospital with a series of tubes connecting me to the person in the next bed, and those tubes were the only thing keeping that person alive, am I obligated to stay there for the 10 months they need to recover? Even as it makes me really sick, makes me diabetic, permanently alters my body, makes it difficult for me to work or see my friends, even if I have to pay for all of it? Is it ethical to force me to let another person live off my body even if I say I don’t want to, I can’t, please don’t make me. Does it matter so much how those tubes got attached of I’m sitting there, sobbing, in pain, pleading to be let go and not held prisoner here?

[desearu]

I’d agree that it isn’t “ethical to force [you] to let another person live off [your] body” and that there shouldn’t be a law to do so. However, I feel that there is also the question “Is it ethical to let you kill the other person?”, or, maybe more precisely “Should the law allow you to kill the other person?”

Isn’t this question at least as important as the question you’re asking?

(Btw. I’m still figuring out my stand on this topic as I can follow the reasoning on both sides to a certain degree. Since you seem to have it thought through very well, I’m genuinely interested in what you think.)

[fandomsandfeminism]

If the only way to NOT kill that person is to let them live off you as life support for 10 months against your will?

Yes.

This is why valuing bodily autonomy is important. It allows us to view complex situations and make judgement calls in a logically consistent way. What is more important: preserving life above all else, or respecting bodily autonomy? When those come into conflict, which do we choose?

And I’d argue that saying we should keep a person alive no matter what, even at the cost of violating their amd other peoples bodily autonomy, quickly opens the door to some very unethical conclusions.

[desearu]

But wouldn’t it be against the other person’s bodily autonomy to kill them? I know you wrote that the trolley debate doesn’t address the central point of bodily autonomy, but I think the distinction here is very important. Not because of the moral aspect. But because “allowing someone to die through inaction” is not an infringement of bodily autonomy, but I’d say “actively causing a death” is, isn’t it?

Therefore, in your scenario (“If I woke up in a hospital with a series of tubes connecting me to the person in the next bed…”) both options (staying 10 months or killing the other person) would be an infringement of bodily autonomy. Or do I miss something here?

(Thanks for the answer!)

[fandomsandfeminism]

The other person in this scenario MUST violate my bodily autonomy to stay alive. I do not need to violate theirs to do the same. Saying “No, you can’t use my internal organs against my will. Bugger off and use your own.” doesn’t violate THEIR bodily autonomy. 

Like, we have to acknowledge that there is a difference between “your body can’t support your life, but you don’t get to violate others to stay alive” and “your just living your life and someone shoots you.”

Additionally- A fetus doesn’t have bodily autonomy, because a fetus isn’t autonomous. 

[desearu]

You don’t say “No, you can’t use my internal organs against my will. Bugger off and use your own.” You actually say “No, you can’t use my internal organs against my will. I will kill you so that you can’t do it anymore.” That’s why I say that it is important that an abortion is not “killing” in the sense of “allowing someone to die through inaction”.

If I take a knife and stab someone to death, I violate their bodily autonomy, don’t I? Actually, in case of abortion than not the mother would be the one violating the bodily autonomy of the fetus, but the doctor who conducts the abortion.

I don’t really understand what you want to say in your second paragraph. Could you rephrase it?

Whether a fetus has bodily autonomy (or better phrased bodily integrity in this case?) or not is IMO the real question in this whole debate around abortion. But in your scenario, you made the other person a “person” and still argued only for one bodily autonomy. I think you can only do that because in the scenario you “kill” the person by “allowing them to die through inaction”. Which is not the case with abortion.

[fandomsandfeminism]

The the bodily autonomy of the pregnant person is ALREADY BEING VIOLATED. The question is whether or not the fetus (or person hooked up on tubes, or person needing an organ transplant, or whatever scenario we are using) gets to CONTINUE that violation if ending it will kill them. 

Even granting a fetus bodily autonomy doesn’t change this argument, because grown ass people don’t get to hijack my internal organs to stay alive. We don’t steal men’s livers in dark alleyways just because someone will die without them. 

Yes, it sucks that maintaining bodily autonomy of the pregnant person means the death of the fetus. But that’s the reality of the situation until medicine progresses to sci-fi levels of pre-natal incubators. But that sad fact doesn’t mean that we strip pregnant people of the right to bodily autonomy. 

The fact that a fetus CAN’T bugger off and use their own organs to stay alive- because they aren’t autonomous- doesn’t mean they magically get the right to violate the bodily autonomy of others. 

[desearu]

All you wrote is predicated on the idea that you first end the violation and in consequence the fetus (or …) dies. But you have to kill the fetus, and only then the violation stops. You have to violate the bodily autonomy of the fetus to do so.

This whole situation is not comparable to someone stealing a liver in a dark alleyway because someone will die without it – because again this only shows one side of the bodily autonomy issue. It is more like you getting an organ transplant and then the person that the organ was taken from says “It was stolen from me, I want it back! You violate my bodily integrity by keeping my organ.” This person can live without their organ, even though it is quite unpleasant. You however need the organ to stay alive for 9 months, then you can give it back. (I have to admit that this is a really strange scenario, but I think it illustrates the dilemma.)

Should the other person shut up, even though their bodily integrity has been and is violated? Should you be forced to have your body cut open to take the organ out, even though this would violate your bodily integrity?

Both you and the other person can argue with their right to bodily integrity. Which is why NEITHER of you can argue with this right. Which is why I don’t see how one can argue in favor of abortion with bodily integrity – if they’re granting a fetus bodily integrity that is.

[fandomsandfeminism]

You dont get to break into someone’s house and then get to stay there because its cold outside.

You dont get to invade another person’s body against their will for any reason.

You dont get to turn people who can get pregnant into incubators against their will.

And again, a fetus doesnt have bodily autonomy. Its not autonomous. Which is why this is a situation at all. If a fetus could be removed from a pregnant person and have it live- we would. But until that’s medically possible, we respect a pregnant person’s right to have control over their own body and have access to the medical care they want.

[just-chilln]

[killerchickadee]

You kiddos have no idea how groundbreaking this was. Like there’s a reason THE lesbian website for a billion years was called After Ellen. She changed everything.

[celia-rguez]

“Everyday at dawn, a postboy delivered the mail to the entire town. One of his most exciting, yet scariest stops, was the mysterious house buried within the forest, where sunlight had to fight to reach the ground. He had never seen anyone enter or leave the building, but the picture was always the same: warm light coming from the windows, a chimney working cheerfully, and an expectant owl ready to snatch whatever he had to turn over.“ 

Instagram: celia.rguez

[sayinggrace-deactivated20200604]

View this post on Instagram

Brittain Ashford and Gelsey Bell warm up for Ghost Quartet by singing “eat a bag of dicks”

[gumptin]

Classic Dave Malloy Things ™

- Gelsey Bell screeching

- synth

- giving 0 fucks about rhyming

- giving 0 fucks about having a consistent genre of music

- performing in shows he wrote

- CELLO

- Brittain Ashford

- Brittain Ashford singing ballads

- giving instruments to the audience

- playing instruments on stage

- alcohol

[marcbrainbarf]

[dilfbrigade]

George is out here trying to get laid with a poster at the pride parade at ninety years old

[lgbtlaughs]

This is George Montague, he’s an author who is currently campaigning to have a historic conviction for “gross indecency” from 1974 (PDA with his then-boyfriend) struct from his criminal record. You can sign his petition here!

[iamthecutestofborg]

The epitome of “Distinguished Gay”

[star-temeraire]

Update as of 7 November 2018, this guy is now 95 years old and is still looking for his apology.

[kidkitthekingslayer]

The fact that nobody is talking about Secret’s new commercials pisses me off

[softwhorecore-deactivated201812]

This makes me so happy ☺️

[iamhannalashay]

Yesssss😭 I damn near cried

[jaxuhmillion]

I LOVE THIS OMFG

[taylorzrealm]

YOOOOOOOOOOO THATS AMAZING!!!!!

[saiasus]

[trufflebootybuttercream-deactiv]

Can someone help me understand I wanna cry to ..I feel something went over my head

[writingsandwonders]

The woman in the bathroom is trans and is scared that if she comes out of the stall the women that walked in will insult or harass her. but when she comes out they compliment her on her dress instead. The add ends with saying “stress tested for women.” It means Secret is including trans women in their definition of women. 

[viragon]

I have reblogged this three times now, each one mentioning the fact that Secret not only included a trans woman, but that they /had the other women compliment her dress and treat her with respect/. I will reblog this every time I see it because it’s so important. More companies should involve trans people in their marketing - we do exist. Props to Secret for getting in on this movement. It makes me really happy to see more of the trans community represented in daily television.

[pokemon-professor-grey-deactiva]

Reblog the shit out of this

[yetanothertaylor]

We need more positive things like this!

[notyrqueer]

Okay but I did cry

[booasaur]

The Bachelor: Vietnam - Contestant confesses to another contestant

[charlesoberonn]

Yes, Avril Lavigne, you can make it more obvious. You literally told me nothing about these two people except their genders and presumingly their young age. They could both be gay, or not even into each other. They could be two complete strangers. They could be living on different continents, or in different time periods. You gotta be more specific.

[keeperofthetongatooth]

It’s the fact she then carries on to describe them as “he was a punk, she did ballet” and then says “what more can I say?” and it’s like you still haven’t actually told us anything ffs Avril. 

[catsandbreadandbikes-deactivate]

He was a 17th century english prostitute, she danced in the Perm Theater Ballet in Russia in 1893

[charlesoberonn]

Wow way to use an archaic meaning of the word ‘punk’ for historical accuracy.