Untitled

[ot3]

cool how once a man gets famous enough he can pretty much just rape as many women as he wants and experience zero consequences. but don't worry guys if you try and have a basic conversation about how women are still an oppressed minority group a bunch of people are going to crawl out of the woodwork salivating over themselves to make sure the conversation becomes about how Men Are Harmed By The Patriarchy Too

[zenbivia]

Taking about how men are harmed by the patriarchy too is actually a good thing, "we are suffering" can bring people together a lot more than "they are suffering". But it absolutely should not overshadow the much more egregious ways that women are harmed by it.

What baffles me though is when people act like the harm done to men invalidates the harm done to women, instead of coming to the much more reasonable conclusion that patriarchy is a problem that hurts everyone and we should fix that.

[ot3]

thanks for taking this basic conversation about how women are still an oppressed minority group and crawling out of the woodwork to make sure the conversation becomes about how men are harmed by the patriarchy too. i was really worried that nobody was going to do that. i'm glad that we can now move away from the ugly topic of women's issues and start thinking about how Everyone is hurt by the patriarchy instead. because if there's one problem with feminism its that we're not bringing people together by talking about men's issues enough.

[nothing-an-iratze-cant-fix]

In fairness, op raised the topic of how men are affected by the patriarchy and whether we should talk about it or not. Seemed a pretty reasonable reply to me.

[ot3]

[gorgynei]

im joining the war on gross disgusting pornographic content on the side of gross disgusting pornographic content

[female-eren]

Meaning actual rape, violence and CSAM. Great

[gorgynei]

if thats what you think of when i say pornographic content i think that says more about YOU than me

[girlballs-archive]

yeah that tracks lmao

[prettycottonmouthlamia]

So the new itch.io guidelines are out and they are both predictably bad and also quite unpredictably bad. There's so much to go over here but here are some of the highlights:

First we have the broadly worded content restrictions. So much of this is just strictly bad for several reasons (for example, you cannot have a NSFW game that doesn't even fetishize rape but has rape be an important thematic element under these new rules) but my personal favorite is that these are so broad that huge swaths of content are just banned from itch.io. You like VNs of monster girls having sex? Sorry, but your favorite spider girl VN is animal-related, we cannot prove that you don't want to fuck spiders so its gone.

(a real problem anyone thinks about??????)

Game where you can transformed by magical artifacts and sometimes fucked? Sorry, that's non-consensual content. Banned. You cannot be transformed into a maid against your will. You also cannot have your protagonist call an older woman "mommy" because likeeeee that's incestual right?

"Minor-presenting" what the fuck does this mean. Genuinely. If a grown woman wears a fetish uniform is that minor presenting??? What the fuck are you talking about.

Also by the way if they feel your content is "too bad" for their platform, which includes a list of conditions incredibly broad to contain things like "a woman who likes being gagged during sex", they will just steal your revenue. No no no not just the revenue from the work in question. All of it. This makes any NSFW work a ticking timebomb, especially since itch.io doesn't have the fucking staff to deal with all of this! There's no second chances. You are not protected against fraudulent report or our dumb as fuck employees.

itch.io right now is just not a safe platform for NSFW content, and honestly, it really should be said, a fair swath of SFW content too. Don't use it, find alternative ways to survive in the market right now.

It's not going to be easy, but it's necessary. Here's a link to an article going over some solutions. I cannot personally vouch for any of these in particular but you need to do what you gotta.

Also, harass VISA and Mastercard. Phone calls over emails. Ruin their workflow. Do it for weeks, don't give up.

[prettycottonmouthlamia]

I know this is a long and very serious post but if you follow me please reblog this. I can't force you or anything but like holy shit I cannot see what is happening and just smile and kick my feet.

[sapphling]

not to vague a post i haven't seen in weeks but do you ever think about how crazy it is that an indignant "well it's just SELFISH to jerk off to porn instead of having sex with your partner, sexual neglect is a form of ABUSE" is like much more concretely an example of rape culture than somebody enjoying porn. and yet

[kusali]

When people say rape is about power and not sex it would help to specify that this means rape is facilitated by (including but not limited to) the power men have over women, the power adults have over children etc and not that it means sexual desire is never a motivator for perpetrators

[kusali]

"Rape is about power, not sex" is meant to orient our thinking away from sexual desire as a cause - because sexual desire is completely fine and value neutral - and towards looking at how sexual assault is possible in the first place, but a lot of people literally think "people never perpetrate sexual assault because they want sex, they only do it because they want to have control over and inflict harm on someone" which is simply not true at all

[nilkadnaquada-deactivated202307]

Any plan for combating CSA is going to have to reckon with the fact that teenagers are often horny and feel a desire to explore and express their sexuality and if they don't have a safe avenue for that which doesn't involve interacting with adult predators they will find an unsafe one which does

[nilkadnaquada-deactivated202307]

This is not a hypothetical this is not a piece of rhetoric I was a horny teenager who had safe avenues for expressing my sexuality without the involvement of adult predators closed off to me and so I found the unsafe ones

[nilkadnaquada-deactivated202307]

+ if your conception of why CSA is wrong is in any way based on a notion of childhood innocence your actions and rhetoric are contributing to CSA, not fighting it.

The harm that is done to a child when they are sexually abused comes from the fact that they are being placed in a vulnerable situation with a pernicious power dynamic, not from the destruction of some illusory victorian notion of purity

[nilkadnaquada-deactivated202307]

Like idk it's really fucked that for some people the rhetoric of "that 15 year old seduced me, I wasn't the aggressor, I'm not in the wrong" is only wrong because they think 15 year olds are like constitutionally incapable of wanting to seduce someone when that's just like categorically incorrect, when I was 15 I very much actively desired to seduce people and even made attempts at doing it. The reason "that 15 year old seduced me, I wasn't the aggressor, I'm not in the wrong" is wrong is because you as an adult have power over that 15 year old regardless of what they are or aren't trying to do and as such if they are trying to seduce you it is your responsibility to not take actions you know to be wrong. It's not wrong because it's describing some kind of impossible desire that a 15 year old would never have, it's wrong because it's seeking to invert the power dynamics of the situation and place all the contextual agency on the minor while rhetorically disempowering the adult to project an image of innocence. It's just garden variety DARVO, not some kind of Metaphysically Incoherent Assertion.

[nilkadnaquada-deactivated202307]

Like idk I feel like it should be pretty easy to point out what's wrong with the logic of "the child told me to commit rape so I did" without inventing a rationale about how children are constitutionally incapable of formulating the idea of telling someone to commit rape

[nilkadnaquada-deactivated202307]

This absurd notion of childhood innocence serves only to put minors in more danger by denying the basic facts of how they experience and interact with the world while simultaneously functioning as a justification for depriving them of useful and necessary information that they could use to protect themselves from predators if they were allowed to have it. When you deny children information about how the world works with regards to sexuality, and deny yourself information about how children work with regards to sexuality, you are putting both yourself and children in a position of having to build a plan on faulty information and you shouldn't be surprised when the house you build this way crumbles under a stiff breeze.

[iberiancadre]

The family is where most of the world's rapes take place, and also most of the murders. Nobody has more chances to rob, abuse, blackmail, manipulate, hit or touch you without consent than your family. It would be logical that announcing an intention of "treating you like family" (as many airlines, restaurants, banks, shops and workplaces do) would be considered as a horrible threat. However, to metaphorically be "family" in the eyes of someone, makes you think of having access to something... quite unfamiliar. Namely: approval, solidarity, a promise to help, embrace, and to take care

Sophie Lewis, Abolish the Family: a Manifesto for Care and Liberation, 2022

[storyweavingspider]

If people of color have the right to be afraid of white people because of their experiences with racism, am i allowed to be afraid of black people because i was bullied relentlessly in middle school in a mostly black school for being white? I supported BLM, agreed with you and many things and was anti white then. But i still was told “we dont like you because youre white” because my peers didnt care how much i sucked up to them. does that mean its okay for me to discriminate against black people now? What about someone who was raped by a black man? Can they be afraid of black people? Or are only people of color allowed to have trauma associations?

You ever read some cracker shit and know they like three seconds from becoming that “liberals forced me to become a nazi” meme

[plaidos]

"all women are oppressed" exactly. transphobic people see a majority of transmascs as women whether we (or I) like it or not. I experience misogyny AND transphobia constantly. the people killing us on the street are the same.

but they aren’t. trans women factually experience domestic violence & violence on the streets at greater levels than trans men. that is just a fact.

[plaidos]

people will just entirely invent a thing that you didn’t say just to try & tear it down with bunk evidence. also i love the implication that all trans women are white & that when i talk about transmisogyny im only talking about white trans women. idk i think that makes you racist not me!

[plaidos]

the transandro playbook is as follows:

1. ignore everything she actually said

2. wholecloth invent a fake quote she didn’t say that misrepresents her values

3. imply all trans men are people of color

4. imply all trans women are white (and therefore not oppressed, because white trans people don’t face violence)

5. tell us we’re making up how often we’re raped (super duper feminist!)

6. cite a bunch of papers that they haven’t read, that don’t reflect the “facts” they’re pushing & that don’t use sound data collection measures (like police reports etc)

7. create dozens of anonymous sockpuppet accounts to stalk, sexually harass & lie about her values her over six months when she points any of this out

8. repeat with a different victim when she blocks you (or, more likely, the same victim, with a new throwaway account to block evade)

like by now yall should just understand that nobody is going to take anonymous throwaways seriously. say what you think with your whole chest & your actual blog otherwise we know that you know you’re full of shit & afraid to face consequences for sexual harassment, stalking & antifeminism

[storyweavingspider]

Fascinating that transandrobros act like every vocal transfemme on here is white when there are so many transfemmes of color talking about how we, especially us Black transfemmes, not only get raped and murdered at much much higher rates for our demographic but also get used as transmisogynistic gotchas any time ANY trans woman tries to speak up.

You don’t care about Black trans women, you don’t care about transmascs of color, you care about using us to launder your MGTOW-lite shit through “oh I got a Black friend that agrees-“ and the second we crowdfunding to survive or for our funerals it’s fucking crickets.

[hyumjim]

Someone said the only sad thing is Charlie Kirk had young kids and I said yeah well he said that if his daughter (who just turned 3 years old) was raped at 10 she should carry the pregnancy to term. She should have her rapist’s baby at 10 years old. That’s what he said about his toddler. So I personally think those kids will be fine without him. And his son is 1, so both these kids are young enough that they’ll barely remember him when they’re older. If you’re still broken up about this, just keep in mind that there’s plenty of time for his daughter to look him up when she’s a little older— let’s say, I dunno, let’s pick a random number, 10 years old— and at this time she will read what her father said about her and she will be traumatized by it. His words will be immortalized for her to read them again and again and ingrain them into her psyche. I hope that’s of some comfort to you 🫶

[cerastes]

It's actually kind of incredible how every single post, even neutrally and not in support of the guy, that essentially posits to cool it with the clowning on Charlie Kirk after he got blasted somehow has a reply, using Charlie Kirk's own beliefs and words, to shoot it down.

"Have some empathy for him" -> Screenshot of Charlie Kirk saying that the West has fallen due to empathy.

"Think about the guy's family" -> Screenshot of Charlie Kirk saying shooting victims are worth it and necessary in the grand scheme of things and that families of shooting victims oughta man up and take it to the chin.

"Maybe he liked puppies?" -> Footage of Charlie Kirk unleashing a wicked combination of strikes on a helpless corgi, this one hasn't happened yet but I got pattern recognition.

[daughter-of-sapph0]

"he was a father" -> quote of him saying he would force his daughter to carry a baby to term if she was raped and got pregnant

[junglejim4322]

The thing that’s amazing about taylor swift fans is they think she’s the most calculated person alive and her breathing pattern is Morse code and there’s hidden meanings in the way each strand of hair on her head falls and nothing is ever unintentional up until she’s hanging out with maga guys with rape accusations and then it’s like umm she probably doesn’t even know who they are how is she supposed to know who she’s associating with she’s just a little birthday girl you can’t be mad at her she doesn’t even know how to read

[deepseasmetro]

girl there really are people too young to be on the internet, specifically because it can be dangerous for young people. how are you in your mid 20s and this delusional?

ok so imagine being 12 and transgender and you live in, well, you live in most parts of the world, but since i know youre in the US, imagine youre in rural alabama. imagine your parents voted for trump. imagine they cried tears over charlie kirks death, they warn you about the men dressed like women in the bathrooms trying to hurt your sister, imagine you are twevle fucking years old and you are a little girl forced to pretend to everyone around you thay youre a little boy or you know theyll beat you or even rape you, imagine going to church every sunday, imagine going to school every day terrified today somebody will find out your secret. imagine living a life so alone and dangerous and terrifying. imagine it. imagine how many of those girls there are in every fucking shitty town in this country one wrong look away from a fucking concussion. okay? imagine it. are you imagining?

do i need to finish this post? what do you expect those little girls to do? die? suffer? live years and years of their lives alone and abused? until they kill themselves?

fuck you man

[jingerpi]

id just like to add that this is not at all a hypothetical

this happened to me

I grew up in conservative area under highly religious parents who were involved in a pseudo-cult centered around child abuse under the guide of "growing kids gods way". they homeschooled me and my many siblings, we weren't supposed to talk to neighbors, we weren't supposed to use the Internet, we weren't even allowed to watch TV unsupervised or read many books at the library.

I was sexually abused and forcibly outed in this households largely due to excessive surveillance. I was sent to conversion "therapy" for months until I convinced them I was "better". later they found out I was not, in fact, "better" and they sent me back again.

I ran away when I was 18 and have not spoken to them since. the Internet saved my life many times over during the period I lived with them. it's the only way I know most of the things I do. it's the only way I even learned what was happening to me was abusive or who I was. it's the only way I had to escape. their surveillance and control of my Internet access hurt me directly and I have lasting PTSD due to it.

"protect the children" means control. it does not mean safety. it means abuse and harm and traumatizing. do not fall for it.

[closet-keys]

I feel like most people in the feminism 101 spaces have internalized on some level that the "stranger rapist" is more a symbolic construct of rape culture itself than it is representative of the most common forms of rape. most feminists at this point have adopted analysis of rape that follows from the statistical reality that you are most likely to be raped by someone that you know (such as a partner, friend, boss, coworker, etc).

but that analysis of rape absolutely disappears the second they start talking about children. suddenly the "stranger pedophile" is the biggest threat to children, and anyone pointing out that a child is most likely to be raped by someone they know (a relative, caregiver, family friend, teacher, classmate, etc.) is viewed as suspect.

this analysis of rape also disappears for many the second we talk about forms of sexual violence that involve direct economic exploitation such as trafficking. the "stranger trafficker" is not recognized as a symbolic construct of rape culture. people ignore the statistical reality that people are most likely to be trafficked by someone they know (relatives, family friends, partners, bosses, etc.)

where is the disconnect happening? why can people apply this analysis in one context and not any of the others?

[communistkenobi]

(presuming the question being asked is not rhetorical, if it is then apologies)

re: the children point, I think people exalt parents to such a high degree that any serious analysis of child sexual abuse has to start with the fact that the social/legal/financial position of a parent directly and systematically produces abuse, and therefore any solutions to this problem require decreasing the power parents hold in family units. I think this is also why “parent’s rights” is always leveraged at education and medicine - don’t tell me to vaccinate my child! Don’t teach my child something I don’t approve of! They are identified as threats to parental sovereignty over their children. Of course many of these arguments can be recognised as openly reactionary, often synonymous with anti-medicine, anti-science, anti-LGBTQ, and Christian fundamentalist positions, but I don’t think the base premise that parents have a right to control their child is ever refuted, people just disagree with specific articulations of that right. Like the argument is almost always about regulating parental power, but that power is always presumed as fundamentally legitimate, even though that is the arrangement that produces abuse

re: trafficking (and this also ties into the first point), I also think there is a refusal to ever contend with the white supremacist conception of white women being “stolen” off the streets, that in settler colonial societies the settler “home” and the unsettled “frontier” are in the same location, and so the white ‘home’ (white women) must always be defended from advancing aggressive non-white forces on the frontier (assumed to always be lurking in wait). Even if there is no explicit racial language being used, I think that is a huge part of the legacy of the popular conception of trafficking as a thing that is done by violent ‘strangers’ to a generalised innocent ‘familiar’ figure, ie white cishet women

and so in general (again, imo), given the white suprematist legacies of a lot of mainstream feminisms, a feminist 101 dialogue about sexual violence is going to have a lot of these premises baked into it - white suprematist conceptions of both ‘sexual’ and ‘violence’ are going to be entangled in these feminist analyses by default unless explicitly challenged, which is where Black, queer, transfeminist, and de/anti-colonial feminisms make some of these interventions

[politijohn]

Source

So this happened when everyone’s attention was on Charlie Kirk’s death

[blogofvariablequality]

'to protect the south from north korea' yeah they just had to work that in there didn't they.

[blogofvariablequality]

wait also 'forced to work as prostitutes' is a fucking weird way to talk about mass state-sanctioned rape

[spockwithacat]

The thing with using 🍇 instead of just saying rape is that if you really need to avoid censors you could use phrases that already exist like forced upon or violated or something else. 🍇 is genuinely the worse possible thing to use when talking about a serious topic and no I never want to see anyone use it when talking about something that happens in real life. It’s genuinely so stupid

[sapphling]

ultimately i just do not think that "fetishism" as a bogeyman serves any positive purpose when we talk about fat people and sexual politics. to the average thin person, there is a body type or a weight at which any desire expressed towards you is a fetish; and the common refrain on here in response to this is oh, well that's ridiculous, obviously we need to be more specific in what we seem to be unacceptable fetishistic behavior. but even if you believe you've totally eliminated that weight limiter in your head (and really, you've most likely just moved it up in your head to what you would consider a really "egregious" body type, but that aside), i just don't think that there's any purpose to treating what should be a conversation about abuse and power as one about "wrong" ways to want. there are thin people who will only ever find themselves attracted to 300lb+ people and will treat them with dignity and respect; there are thin people who will never find themselves attracted to fat people but will still harass them, rape them, habitually enter into abusive dynamics and exploit their labor, etc. and it just feels useless to try and reason around why this is the case under a model of Healthy vs. Fetishistic attraction when desire has never actually been the mode through which this kind of violence and mistreatment happens