❣ Chile in a Photography ❣
Cosmic Funnies
wallacepolsom
almost home
PR's Tumblrdome
Discoholic 🪩
Sade Olutola
No title available
Keni
No title available
Lint Roller? I Barely Know Her
he wasn't even looking at me and he found me
2025 on Tumblr: Trends That Defined the Year
YOU ARE THE REASON
let's talk about Bridgerton tea, my ask is open
Product Placement
Show & Tell
"I'm Dorothy Gale from Kansas"
tumblr dot com
AnasAbdin
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Sri Lanka
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Ukraine
seen from United States
seen from Russia
seen from China
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Romania
seen from United States
@tonbohaato
Question for the Acespecs of tumblr! please click the correct option below:
I am asexual but not aromantic
I am asexual and aromantic
I am not asexual but I am aromantic
I am somewhere else on the acespec/arospec (e.g. demisexual/demiromantic)
I am allosexual and alloromantic
I am questioning whether I am acespec/arospec
Reblogs would be super helpful as my polls don't usually get anywhere, and I'd like to reach the acespec peeps!
Because of all of tumblr's updates and push for blogs popping up on the dashboard or pushing mobile users to open up the app, I can't even go back and look at your private blog, the one that you shared just with me. It directs me to the app, which directs me to nothing. What am I supposed to do with this key I still have now, when I'm barricaded from the lock? Am I just supposed to keep it tucked away, in the place right below my heart, for the rest of my life, unable to ever use it again?
How fitting it would be, to carry it like that. Forever a part of me, never to be touched again.
The 2023 Gender Census is now open!
[ Link to survey ]
The 10th annual international gender census, collecting information about the language we use to refer to ourselves and each other, is now open until 9th May 2023.
It’s short and easy, about 5 minutes probably.
After the survey is closed I’ll process the results and publish a spreadsheet of the data and a report summarising the main findings. Then anyone can use them for academic or business purposes, self-advocacy, tracking the popularity of language over time, and just feeling like we’re part of a huge and diverse community.
If you think you might have friends and followers who’d be interested, please do reblog this blog post, and share the survey URL by email or at AFK social groups or on other social networks. Every share is extremely helpful - it’s what helped us get 40,000 responses last year.
Survey URL: https://survey.gendercensus.com
The survey is open to anyone anywhere who speaks English and feels that the gender binary doesn’t fully describe their experience of themselves and their gender(s) or lack thereof.
Thank you so much!
[ Link to survey ]
Image credit: Avery at Tradescantia Hub
Happy International Asexuality Day! IAD is a coordinated worldwide campaign promoting the ace umbrella, including demisexual, grey-asexual and other ace identities.
Learn more at internationalasexualityday.org IAD has several livestreams lined up today on their youtube page: www.youtube.com/@InternationalAsexualityDay/streams
i looked at queeringthemap today and had a good cry but these especially touched me
yeah.
chinese garden in winter by 一只拍照的依琳
By the way with the supreme court reopening Lawrence and considering making anything other than cishet vanilla sex illegal, the "kink at pride" debate needs to die, right fucking now. We're about to see firsthand why kink and queer rights are so closely tied together and what we need is to stand in unity. This also means queer discourse needs to die, right now.
Listen, everyone. You have pride because of leather daddies and Trans Women of Color. You have pride because of the same people you're ashamed to accept into the community.
We're all about to become targets, and we can't win separated. And we especially need to protect our most vulnerable, we need to protect the members of our community that will get targeted the most.
Discourse needs to end. The United States' fascism and hate is getting worse, and anyone that knows their world history knows things might get really bad here soon, and it's more important than ever that we can stand together. If we get caught up on labels or "is this person really LGBT" or anything like that, the people that hate us all for existing will divide and conquer and we will all lose.
Op said it best
If you like the word “queer” reblog.
can’t focus on work. can only think of that one lesbian poem about chivalry
oh god. oh fuck
I honestly cannot believe how far T(W)ERF rhetoric has spread on this site. They used to be the ONLY ones I saw openly mocking the concept of identifying as queer, the ONLY ones I saw referring to people as ‘kweer’ in a mocking way.
You all are so 100% certain you know how to identify radfem and T(W)ERF rhetoric and can’t possibly fall victim to it but guess what.
They are nowhere near above pulling this shit. And you all are falling for it.
And if you think that screenshot is an isolated incident, think again!
There are countless radfem and T(W)ERF blogs that I’ve blocked that said ‘secret radfem sideblog’ in the description.
Like, it’s great that we’ve made being a T(W)ERF so unaccepted on this site that they can only be open about the most toxic of their views in secret side blogs rather than on their main, but it’s time to accept that they’re taking advantage of that in a really fucking insidious way.
Just a tip on how to recognize these blogs. If you follow someone and you start getting suggested t*rf blogs that’s a good sign the person has sideblog for that stuff. There was some cowboy blog I followed a while ago and I used to get follow suggestions saying “this blog is similar to cowboy whatever” and it was a ton of t*rf shit and low and behold they ended up outing themselves
This is why we learn about what actual TERF ideology is. Saying “trans women are women” and “TERFS not allowed” and putting “TERF destroyer” or whatever in your bio is not enough. Learn how TERFs actually work, and what they believe, and where it stems from, and how they express diluted versions in order to warm up non-TERFs to their ideas.
Do the fucking work. Unfollow/block people who express TERF ideas even if they don’t label themselves as TERFs, challenge those ideas in your community, and you won’t have to worry about secret TERF blogs anymore.
Just in case you happen to be unaware, some of the “radfem lite” they post to warm you up to their rhetoric, just off the top of my head:
Ace/aro exclusionism
Bi exclusionism or claims that bi people are “less queer” bc of “straight passive privilege”
Saying you have to be dysphoric to identify as trans
Invalidating nonbinary people
Calling queer a slur regardless of context, saying people can’t identify as queer, and saying that it can’t be reclaimed
“Mogai hell”, “kweer”, or otherwise mocking less common labels and claiming they are “just cishets who want to feel special”
Excluding sex workers from feminist discussions or claiming that sex work is inherently evil
Basically anyone who thinks they can determine what other people identify as
“Men are bad, all men are bad, being attracted to men is something you should regret and apologize for, being like a man in any way is bad.”
Do not forget this. Like. This is very widespread.
The mainstream LGBTQIA movement is becoming increasingly puritanical. In my eyes, this is a subconsciousness effort by queer people to fight for our rights by appeasing the cis-het overlords. Basically we are trying to get them to give us rights by acting just like them.
In reality however, we aren’t like them and we really shouldn’t be. The sexual status quo is fundamentally harmful and objectively flawed. Furthermore, appeasing one’s oppressors never works, it just makes the oppressors more powerful.
No amount of sexual stuff a child or teenager could see at pride would, even if we assume it's not ideal, come close to what it does to you to grow up seeing airbrushed models selling everything with sex and having all the humanity edited out of sexual things and the sexuality edited out of all things human, including mainstream porn. I would rather a 14y/o spend their free time in a kink dungeon than in front of a billboard, because when you see and learn sexuality through actual people you see that it's not different from other forms of human connection and interaction. And being around kink in a context where you can walk up the the people and talk to them will teach you actual boundaries and consent. Something that our culture sorely lacks.
This is such a bad-faith argument that I don't even know where to start, @disabledstemstudent. But... let's treat it like it's in good faith and you've just got some shit to unpack.
Let's start out with this: no one is fucking in public at Pride. Pride isn't the Folsom Street Fair, which I often see it compared to, and all of the "look at this man getting fisted in public" or whatever comes from Folsom and is presented as taking place at Pride. It's technically true that Folsom is a Pride event, because it's a Leather Pride event, but you aren't going to stumble across someone fucking in public at Folsom. You have to deliberately enter the closed-off area where Folsom takes place, so if you're seeing fucking in public at Pride, you're either at Folsom and that's on you, or someone is doing something they shouldn't be. We'll come back to that second idea in a minute, but for now, let's reiterate:
No one is fucking in public at Pride.
So what are we really talking about, here? What's the real bugaboo that people are discussing?
Two things: public nudity and "leather/fetish/kink clothing".
(I put quotes around the latter because what we normally refer to as "fetish clothing" is only a very narrow segment of what people wear for kink purposes, but I'll get back to that, too.)
What is it that people are really objecting to, here? "I don't want to see almost naked people in public. I don't want to see clothing which I consider to be sexual signaling. Someone wearing a pup mask in public is engaging in a public scene and I don't consent to being part of that."
All of this hinges on the concepts of 1) consent and 2) how queer sexuality is viewed as opposed to cishetallo sexuality. So let's start peeling all of that apart.
So let's first talk about Folsom vs Pride. Folsom Street Fair in SF is literally what the 'this should be in an 18+ space' crowd is advocating for! This IS that space!
But people are (deliberately in many cases, ignorantly in others) conflating Leather Pride, in September, with the Pride which sprung from the 1970 Christopher Street Liberation Day March organized by Brenda Howard, among others. That March, a continuation of the East Coast Homophile Organization's 4th of July Marches started in Philly in 1965, gave birth to Pride Month.
Folsom, by contrast, began as a protest in San Francisco against gentrification of a historically gay neighborhood, and was specifically a queer/Leather pushback against people trying to re-closet the queer community during the AIDS crisis. San Francisco was specifically using the AIDS crisis as an excuse to close bathhouses and regulate bars, which started in 1984, so it's not a surprise that the first Folsom Street Fair took place that year.
Both were protests against the ways in which white cishetalloperikyriarchy has tried to crush our community over the decades, but they are independent events with independent origins. They should not be conflated; if nothing else, it's a disservice to our history.
However. Pride is not, and never has been, a family-friendly event; this protestation that it should be is rooted in protoTERF & white cis-gay sanitation attempts & ignores the history of the event itself. Pride was begun by kinksters, including Brenda Howard, famously quoted as saying, "Bi, Poly, Switch - I'm not greedy, I know what I want." She was a Jewish disabled leather-community sex worker, & that identity is emblematic of the people who founded Pride in the first place.
This 'santization/cishet-friendliness' of Pride completely plows over & astroterfs (not a typo) its roots:
All of the central figures in Stonewall were not cis, or gender-conforming, and Stonewall itself? Owned by the Mafia, since only they would bankroll gay bars at the time. (In fact, the rename of it was an attempt to keep the Mafia from having 'ownership' since they owned Stonewall - there were concerns that the Mafia would say 'this is our event, you're using the name of our bar.' A far cry from Wells Fargo & Merck sponsorships, that.)
A scant few years later, in 1973, people were booing one of the activists from Stonewall, Sylvia Rivera, because the TERF-and-cis-LG pushback had already begun. The cis white LG's were beginning their calls for respectability. This is the famous 'Y'all Better Quiet Down' speech. People who were NOT at Stonewall were already trying to sanitize Pride, & there's video from a radfem screaming at Sylvia and misgendering her. I will not name said radfem, may her name be obliterated.
Pride has ALWAYS included Leather and has ALWAYS included Kinksters because it was founded by them and this sanitization started as soon as the Comfortable felt like they could take Pride from the Most Afflicted and those who had been there. Like, the group Sylvia and Marsha founded was called Street Transvestite Action Revolutionaries, run by trans sex workers for trans sex workers. This was NEVER the neat-and-tidy acceptable-to-straights corporate-friendly bullshit that people seem to think it is/should be now.
So now we've established that this event sprung from the "unrespectable queers" because the respectable ones had been doing the organizing before then and had resisted joining with the unrespectable queers, the kinksters and the leather daddies, because they didn't want to be seen as "like that," but when Pride became successful and actually got somewhere, they sure were happy to swoop on in and literally tell Sylvia and Marsha "you can't march with us because you're not respectable and you would drag us down." (They showed up and walked in front of the parade.)
Well, so what? Why does it matter if they wanted to exclude trans sex workers who weren't respectable in appearance, amirite? If the Respectable Gays wanted to swoop on in and take from the Unrespectable Queers what the latter built?
Well, aside from the fact that what they did and tried to do was shitty? Because the whole thing started because of sumptuary laws. Pride literally springs from cishetallos deciding what clothing is "acceptable" for queers to wear in public based not on how much of their body is covered but upon the perceived queerness of their clothing.
Stonewall began because cops were enforcing vice laws targeting trans and gnc people. At the time, it was illegal to wear more than 2 items of clothing associated w/'the wrong gender,' so a trans woman wearing bra, panties, and a skirt was illegally dressed. So they were literally raiding bars, getting people's IDs, and comparing their junk to their clothes and deciding who was illegally and immorally dressed.
Let that one sink in for a minute, in context. I wonder why Pride had so much emphasis on kinky queers & trans queers & GNC queers being out loud & Proud in whatever the fuck they wanted to wear on this ONE DAY when they were all together & physically more people than the police could stop. (Not that Pride wasn't a permitted march from the first - it was - and it was a protest, not a party.)
And now that we've established that Pride, the protest March, not the street fair for corporations, is and always has been by and for the leather daddies and the Dykes on Bikes, the revolutionary contingent who got into fights with cops over the right to wear the clothes they wanted to wear -- and had been doing so for years, by the way, Stonewall was just the first well documented violent conflict between cops acting on repressive vice laws which targeted femme queens in specific and the people they were oppressing with the weight of the law...
... let's actually talk about consent.
Those vice laws were based on consent. The idea that the general public didn't consent to seeing trans women in public. The idea that the general public got to have a say on whether or not they consented to seeing trans people in public was the whole basis of those laws. I don't consent to seeing you queers and recognizing you as queer.
But it's different! The anti-kink-at-Pride crowd cries. This is explicitly sexual clothing!
First of all, no. It's not. Kink is not inherently sexual.
Second of all, even if kink is inherently sexual, even if what you object to is clothing which signals sexually to other people, why is this particular clothing which signals sexually to other people what you object to? Why is it this?
Why aren't you objecting to cishet women in plunging necklines or wearing tiny bikinis to the beach? Why aren't you protesting billboards where m/f couples in almost nothing, or sometimes totally nothing, literally have their tongues down each other's throats?
Is it because this clothing is indicative of what you think of as deviant sexuality?
I'm willing to bet it is, and if that's the case, then there's an awful lot to unpack there about who and what has a deviant sexuality and why we hypersexualize and condemn queer displays of sexuality, especially QTPOC sexuality.
(There is a lot of very racialized bias in this conversation but that is not mine to unpack -- I just need to stop and say YES THIS EXISTS, because boy it sure does.)
Why exactly do we think queer sexuality displays require MORE consent than the hypersaturated cishet sexuality surrounding us like a dank BUYTHISNOW miasma every time we turn on a TV/walk out the door?
The answer is internalized homophobia & transphobia. That's yours to unpack, and it is not the job of a random stranger to change their behavior because you see queer sexuality as inherently more sexual or aggressive, nor is it their job to regulate their clothing according to the possible sexual trauma or sexual orientation of others.
The idea of consent in sexuality and discussed in BDSM/Leather communities centers around the idea that someone should not do something to you without your consent. It's a good concept! I like it! It's correct that it is a cornerstone of BDSM and it SHOULD BE.
But, and this is really important, so I need you to read this several times and really sit with it:
The idea that someone simply wearing a pup mask in public is doing something to you while a woman in a thong bikini is not requires you to be examining the world through the homophobic lenses which society smacks on all of our eyes.
Read it again. Think about it. Be okay with the fact that this fact makes you uncomfortable and resistant to recognizing it. Be okay with your discomfort so you can actually unpack that.
The idea that you need to consent to seeing a leather daddy in a harness, but skinny cishet white girls at clubs aren't doing something to you by wearing bondage pants & harnesses (which they do, all the time, & no one blinks) comes from internalized homophobia and transphobia.
The way that we view queer sexual signaling no more overt than what cishet people do constantly and base entire economic systems around as doing something to us in a way that requires us to consent to even seeing it is based in homophobia and transphobia.
It is exactly the same mentality that meant my school administrators in the 90s fired a gay teacher because kids might see her at school events with her partner.
It is exactly the same mentality that meant that the administrators first barred the only lesbian couple at my school from holding hands & kissing each other goodbye in the halls and then barred the straight couples from doing so too when rightful claims of discrimination flared.
And? All of this argument requires us to think of Pride as a singular event with no variations, striations, separate areas, etc. This is clearly not the case. If you look at the slate of events for any major city's Pride events, there are very clearly multiple different events across multiple days for most of them. If you want to create a PG-13 event, or attend one, most places have those!
Expecting the entirety of Pride to be kid-safe is ahistorical, treats adults like children, and requires you to smack them homophobic glasses right back on your eyeballs and insist that the Bad Queers go back into the closet.
And, of course, this all ties into the "pedophile" and "groomer" bullshit which has sprung back up like fucking mushrooms. Oh, those bad nasty queers who are ... wearing leather pants in public and going bare-chested and wearing a face mask and a leash! Oh no! They're making things unsafe for our children by wearing clothing less revealing than the average beach!
But it's bad clothing because it's queer clothing and queer sexuality is, in this mindset, inherently threatening and doing something to you. So engaging with this argument supports that shit, and honestly... it's fucking obscene.
Using this argument against queer adults who are literally just there enjoying the company of other queer adults is fucking violence. This argument and its root implications are the accusations which got (and still get) queers evicted, fired, and beaten to death.
So, IN CONCLUSION:
How dare you come to an event founded by kinksters and swarm around them like the other animals clamoring at the Little Red Hen for the bread she baked?
How dare you look at the leather daddies who survived AIDS and say "we climbed on your back to where we are now, where big corporations see the dollar signs in the queer community rather than condemning us to literally die in the streets, now go away, because you're unsightly and we don't wanna see you anymore?"
How dare you engage this in an environment where they're literally trying to make social transition for minors illegal. What is social transition? Clothing. So now we're back to "wearing the 'wrong gender's' clothing" is the crime they're trying to make a Thing again in Florida.
How dare you and everyone making this shit-ass argument year after year look at Dykes on Bikes who nursed and buried their dying friends when no one else would and say "mmm, you're a pedophile actually because you want to go topless in the sun and show off the tattoos that you got in defiance of a world that didn't want you to live, and ride through the street with your lover's arms around you for one day, pretending this world still doesn't want you dead?"
How dare you wield the very important language of consent like a fucking scythe against your fellow queers?
That is a tool, not a fucking weapon.
Do not use it to attack our history, this event that your elders made for you.
Strangers on the street are not responsible for your sexual trauma, and if your trauma is so bad that you can't walk around in public and see people wearing sexually-signaling clothing, then I commend you to mental health care and wish you the best of luck, because that's almost all the clothing that people wear, in one form or another.
It still isn't the responsibility of adults wearing clothing they are otherwise permitted to wear to change that clothing because you don't like the messaging it sends about who they fuck and how they fuck. A leather harness and a slinky black dress both convey that information, so why is only one of those things objectionable?
But Spider! What if I'm walking down the street at New York Pride and a dude has his dick out and is getting a blowjob right there in the street!
Well, buddy, then that's bad regardless of whether the dude in question is wearing leather pants or a polo shirt and khakis, but...
... why did you only picture one of those two images when you read that sentence? Why did you immediately conjure up a specific image in your mind, and why wasn't it a dude in jeans and a t-shirt? Trust me, the gays in polo shirts and khakis fuck just as much as the ones in mesh shirts and latex dick slings.
Yeah. That shit is yours to unpack and deal with, not other people's to cater to.
every time I see LGBTQ discourse I think about that post that said masc cis lesbians get kicked out of bathrooms as cruelly as trans people do so why the fuck are some lesbians transphobic , and I think about how homophobes won’t check for your sexuality before calling us slurs and I think about how my local dyke March considers anyone who identifies as a dyke a dyke because fuck rainbow capitalism we are here to fight for our lives and I think about how my best friends are bisexual and I think about how lesbians have been loving each other in ways that the gender binary has never been able to understand(and never will) and I think about that post that says the worst thing the right did was convince queer people other queer people were the enemy
You really need to start realizing that the overlap between cis girls who ship m/m content and trans mlm/nblm who ship m/m content will always have some level of indistinguishable overlap when you consider trans people who have not yet understood that they are trans.
So even if your target is only cis girls who "fetishize mlm" and you explicitly support trans mlm/nblm, the outcome will always include hurting, shaming, and repressing young trans people as well! It is quite literally unavoidable. Those feelings of shame will not suddenly go away the moment they realize they are trans, it just adds a new layer of complexity to their feelings about their gender and attraction to men.
Like, call out the more egregious examples of fetishization when you see it but even truly cis girls who participate in that content aren't inherently fetishizing by doing so, and a tirade against this content still ends up hurting the people you think you are supporting.
Apropos the last point, I would also like to add on that it is incredibly difficult to draw up a universal ruleset for what depictions constitute fetishizing/offensive or not. It's highly contextual, and individual.
I have seen trans artists and writers get accused of fetishizing/oppressing themselves for art they've made, about themselves, especially if that art features trans bodies or sexual content, and that's kinda fucked up.
Like, one person might find an erotic depiction of a feminine non-op trans guy fetishizing, while someone else might find it affirming. The creator might've simply wanted to explore their own body type as something desirable, something many trans people intensely struggle with, but risk getting swarmed by the purity police for it.
So often, queer artists and writers end up having to out themselves because they get accused of being cishets fetishizing/misrepresenting queer identities, when they're really just trying to explore and express themselves through art.
The solution to stopping fetishization has never been to obsessively check if the creators of "potentially problematic" content have the "correct" identity, and are therefore "allowed" to produce it, or that the audience has the "correct" identity to be "allowed" to consume it.
Saying "if you aren't gay, you shouldn't be consuming or making gay content" has the same kind of energy as telling a kid "if you aren't a girl, you shouldn't be interested in girl stories"; both hold this idea that the experiences of different groups of people are so fundamentally different as to hold no genuine connection to one another, so the only interest across lines has to be some sick voyeuristic fascination. (Who does that sound like?)
And that's just so wrong. And actually a little dehumanizing?
Many groups of people can relate to feeling like your love is forbidden. That your sexual desire (and wanting to be desired) is shameful and wrong. That you are considered inherently lesser or even dangerous for some part of who you are. There are a lot of thoughtful articles out there about why queer themes might resonate with other groups of people (and vice versa), because we can in fact relate to each other even if we're also different. And maybe that's a good thing?
And just as a personal opinion; I don't give a shit what content one creates or consumes involving fictional characters and their relationships as long as you respect the humanity of real people who share those traits.
it also empowers people who Do intentionally target trans mlm/nblm when you give them a system that they can exploit. when we have terfs and radfems and transphobes in general arguing that trans mascs are Really all women fetishizing Real gay men (either encouraging people to detransition or presenting trans mascs as predators to demonize and harass them) then we have to step back and look at the framework they’re working off of and Why it can be so easily exploited to demonize people who didn’t do anything wrong.
bestceramics.cn
i have thought a lot about censorship and what is “appropriate”. not a lot of people know this, but lolita was written to show what we allow on our bookshelves: there being no swear words in it meant it was free from censorship. a book about child molestation was allowed because it didn’t explicitly use the word “fuck”. he wrote it to show we don’t really care about protecting children, and it ended up being seen as a romance.
someone once told me - actually, many people have - that lgbt content isn’t appropriate for children. any content. not just kissing. i’m drowned in questions: “won’t the parents have to explain it?” “kids shouldn’t be thinking about sex at this age, or do you think differently?” “what will the kids think?”
at six i saw disney movies. people kiss and get married. i didn’t ask “what does that mean.” i didn’t ask “are those people going to have sex?” i didn’t ask anything, because i was six, and no six year old thinks twice about these things. nobody ever “explained” being straight to me, it was a fact, and it existed, and i was fine with that. why would being gay require a thesis, i wonder.
someone once told me that the one of the reasons people hate lgbt individuals is because they can’t see us as anything but sexual. we’re not people, so much as sinners. that they don’t see love, they see sex. just sex. it’s perversion, not a matter of the heart. only of the body.
i think i was in my early twenties before i saw someone like me.
how old were you, though, before you saw violence? before you saw sexual assault on tv? i think something like that is only pg-13, and if it’s implied, they can get away with anything. i remember watching things and learning about blood, but knowing sex - sex was what was really wrong. sex was always rated r. sex was always kind of a bad word. i was told a lot that i wasn’t ready.
i had a dream last night that i made a site where people could ask any question they wanted about sex and get answered by a professional. it was shut down in moments because 15 year olds wanted to know if it should hurt, if “double-bagging” was a real thing, if this, if that. we shudder. don’t let the children know about that!
but at thirteen i had seen enough violence it no longer struck me. i couldn’t say “fuck” but i knew that if you break your femur, you can bleed out internally in under half an hour. in school i wasn’t allowed to write about loving girls because what would the administration think - but i could write about wanting to kill myself and people would say how lovely, how blistering.
i have thought a lot about censorship. sometimes people on this site try it with me: don’t write this, don’t be so nasty. some of it is intrinsic. we know as people with a uterus not to complain about “that time of the month”, we know better than to talk about sexual assault (how shameful), we know that talking about a vagina is somehow scandalous. i can say “dick” and nobody questions me. some people only refer to the bottom half of me by “pussy”. they won’t wrap a mouth around “vagina” like it’s poison to them. even discussing this, that the language halts, that there’s an intrinsic desire to say “girls” instead of “women” - feels naughty, illicit. not for children.
the other day someone suggested i make my blog 18+. i said, okay, it deals a lot with depression and other problems that might be for a mature audience. oh no, they said, that’s not it, i think that’s helpful. i said, okay. so what is it then. well, you’re gay. you write about loving women. and i said, i don’t write about sex often and they said. it’s not about the sex. but wlw isn’t for a general audience. teenagers aren’t ready.
oh.
lolita is recommended for high school and up. i think about that a lot. i know girls who love it, who say it speaks to them on a deep level. it’s beautiful prose, after all. that was the whole point of the novel. something that looked like a rose but was intrinsically awful. i think about how if i was a model they’d want me to look young, thin, prepubescent. how my body would be sold and how through the mall i walk by images of barely-clothed women while mothers cannot breastfeed in public without fear of retribution.
i think about how i can write a novel about violence and it will be pg-13 but if my characters say “fuck” twice it’s inappropriate. i said fuck three times so far in this post, which makes it only appropriate for adults.
i think about that, and how my identity is something that people suggest lines up with a swear word. that people shouldn’t talk about it. that it’s a vulgarity. bad for children, harsh, confusing.
fuck. i love women. which one makes this only for those over eighteen.
This is such a powerful post. Read it fully, and spread it around.
losing more than a friend (the one that got away) 2/3
part 1, part 3
sandra cisneros “one last poem for richard” excerpt // pinterest // david levithan // wislawa szymborska “nothing twice” // pinterest // flatsound “you wrote ‘don’t forget’ on your arm” // pinterest // richard siken // @meerkuesse // lillian hellman // @bestdressed on instagram // pinterest
