#soapbox hour

[systemcomicmoment]

i do find it odd when people inherently expect you to have littles... the whole point is fragmenting to survive... sometimes thaf part of somebody just withers away or shapeshifts into something else or becomes so dangerous that it cannot afford to exist. it makes perfect sense to me. frankly it is sort of odd that so many systems Have them, rather than not...

i wonder if systems who recognize their own systemhood and cope with it better are somehow likelier to have them. a theory that can hold some weight, often they are either in a better environment, or performing extreme self reflection, to get to that point... that makes it safe for that part to come out again, maybe. that or... mmm.

maybe it is even necessary for their survival? when the point is withstanding abuse, i suppose a child may be most effective. anything stronger can fight back. sometimes the optimal move for one's continued survival Is to just take it and put the memory away for later...

this is all pointless i am just curious about the origins of such a widespread idea

[quantifiableme]

permission to stop calling things “biphobic”, “ace-phobic”, or “transphobic”. It’s all homophobic. Lets just call it that.

As a bisexual, when I hear someone say something is “biphobic” is so friggin corny. I have no impulsive to fight that cause because it sounds dumb.

However, if you are judging someone’s experience with their sexuality, saying that you are “more gay” because you have a more exclusive spectrum of your experience (ie. Only liking the same gender)— that makes you homophobic.

Saying someone has to feel sexual attraction to people, because *you* feel sexual attraction to people isn’t ace-phobic. That’s homophobic, baby, you’re being a homophobe.

If you are telling someone that their self-expression and gender “isn’t real” and that they are faking it- THAT’S HOMOPHOBIA.

(And lets be honest. If you are speculating about someone’s sexuality without their permission: That’s also homophobic. You think that guy is gay because he has a higher pitch voice and does theater. That’s a stereotype and you’re being friggin homophobic.)

We aren’t being inclusive when we’re being so specific with which group we’re offending. We’re all fighting the same battle, just with different faces. If you or someone you know is policing how someone understands and communicates their gender and/or their sexuality —in whatever capacity that entails— you are being homophobic.

[chicpsychic]

Wasn't there also a difference in a lot of people's minds between a woman who was naked and the implication being she was always naked (that picture of Venus,) and a woman who was naked with her clothes in the picture implying she took them off? (I can't remember what picture I'm thinking of for the life of me)

That is one aspect, yes! There are a lot of different types of nudity in art and they vary by degrees how well they're received by critics. There are "holy" depictions (a breastfeeding Mary, a nude Jesus on the cross) that are generally acceptable but still often censored, and nowadays it might actually be even more controversial to depict nudity in biblical art despite the historical equivalents being (for the most part) accepted. You brought up Venus and the one people think of, I think, is Botticelli's Birth of Venus, 1486. Her pose is fairly modest as in most mythological paintings around that time, BUT it calls back heavily to ancient statues of Venus, ostensibly making it kind of an ode to ancient art and less a depiction of the female form. This isn't about sculpture vs paintings but it should be said that art form and historical perspective play a large role in what we consider tastefully erotic or blatantly scandalous.

Slightly more modern Venus is Rokeby Venus by Diego Velazquez, which has Venus turned toward a mirror. This one was still controversial, more voyeuristic than a couple of centuries prior, and more typical of the nudes of the 17th century. Venus as a woman rather than a mythological figure is still a source of criticism.

The painting I think you're thinking of (if it's not Baigneuses) is Goya's The Nude Maja, which is frankly one of my favorites. Very in your face, "this is a body", daring. And super super controversial back in the very early 19th century. She's not a myth or a holy figure, she's a bare woman who is as much of an exhibitionist as the viewer is a voyeur. Look up the full history on her, it's honestly fantastic.

Courbet still takes the cake for controversial nudity, all considered. He basically took the overwhelming criticism about drawing tits and turned it into energy to aggressively draw more tits. The Origin of the World still pisses people off and I am living for it.

[chicpsychic]

Honestly though, nudity in art has always and likely will always scandalize the vast majority of critics. Baigneuses by Courbet was met with outrage at The Salon in 1855 because there was a naked woman front and center (and, less important to the critics but a more reasonable argument, his background work was shoddy), sparking debates in the blossoming impressionism era, which was also met with high criticism for the style and casual depiction of nudity several years later. Despite the non-sexualization of the nude portraits of that time, the unspoken rules were that the human body is for God or Spouse and anything else is voyeuristic, making the artist and viewers complicit in defiling the purity of the subject.

Personally, I think that's entirely the point.

Anyway. Censorship has always run rampant in the art world and anyone who thinks one ass is more or less contemptible than another is typically a hypocrite.