everything matters

[namtan]

JURASSIC PARK 1993 | dir. Steven Spielberg

[keikomivra]

JURASSIC PARK (1993) Dir. Steven Spielberg

[slunch]

tl;dr: all "algorithmically" pushed stuff on a newsfeed is mostly ads. nothing that's really surprising form this vulture article, but it is dismal and makes me grateful for one website where you only see things from people you follow WITHOUT horrible short-form video content

[pasdetrois]

Аленький цветочек / The Scarlet Flower (1978) dir. Marina Ilyichyova

[wntrwzrdr]

The Princess and the Pea, 1976

[sandmandaddy69]

[joycord]

[mistakenforamistake]

Kytice (2000), dir. F.A. Brabec

[rusiland]

Щелкунчик | The Nutcracker (1973) dir. Boris Stepantsev

[soup-mother]

"masculine role models" lol

[soup-mother]

"masculine role models" were a scam invented by men (who themselves are also a scam invented by men, it's complicated) to cement the patriarchal family as the only possible way to raise a child and justify keeping "fathers" around. It doesn't necessarily have to be a nuclear family, but kids *obviously* need some masculine influence to teach them it's not ok to be a woman. Otherwise they'd grow up soy.

Masculinity is a social pact that reproduces itself via violent enforcement and reinforcement between men and you should not be giving them any more victim-members or treating it as the natural way of the world.

Anyone who tries to convince you of some genuine psychological need for "masculine role models" in a kids life is a wacko gender shill trying to justify the patriarchy all the unimaginable horrors that come with it, and you should probably kick them in the shins.

[soup-mother]

> "Negative impact of lacking male role models/a father in childhood development"

> look inside

> 99% just the negative impacts of childhood poverty from being raised by a single mother

[victusinveritas]

[animals-why]

"They" in this case is Project CETI; here's a guardian article.

[cinematicjourney]

Blue Heron (2025) | dir. Sophy Romvari

[hayaomiyazaki]

— How come I don't remember that? — I think there's a lot you don't remember.

Blue Heron (2025) written & directed by Sophy Romvari

[tiktoksthataregood-ish]

[pantheratigrisaltaica]

for those curious, this is joanne, a 15-year-old sumatran tiger currently living at phoenix zoo. it's very sweet to see her playing and tumbling around like this at her age -- she's got some people taking care of her if she still has this energy at that age.

i did see some users in the notes who were concerned about her looking 'scrawny', or wondering if she's maybe a juvenile -- far from it! at 15, joanne is very much considered a geriatric tiger; she's a grandma. she is, however, a sumatran tiger (panthera tigris sumatrae) -- sumatrans are the smallest extant subspecies of tiger, built more for the sweltering jungles of sumatra than the blistering cold of the amur river or the dense forests and mangrove swamps of south asia.

when you're used to seeing amur or amur-bengal hybrid ('generic') tigers on television or online, most of which are often overfed and overweight, a sumatran is going to look a bit weird, but joanne looks to be in wonderful shape -- look at those muscles flex and that coat shimmer when she moves! that's a healthy old lady for sure. props to joanne's keepers for taking such good care of her.

[problemnyatic]

Nauseating, by the way, just how prevalent abstinence-only ideology seems to have completely washed through people like. It's just common now for some shithead to show up like "you think it's normal for teenagers to watch porn? 😬" Yeah actually it is one of the most historically well-understood axioms of teenagers that they are horny all the time because of puberty. They're literally in the process of sexual development, their bodies are building and testing the hardware for sex.

Of course every person is different and there's a full spectrum of sex drive among teenagers, but if you're seriously expecting most teenagers not to masturbate until they turn 18 you are living in a fantasy. Sex isn't evil!!!!!! Sex isn't damaging!!! Sex is not toxic or harmful!!! Sex is just sex, and whether or not something constitutes sexual abuse or sexual harm has more to do with what makes something abusive or harmful, and little to do with how sexual it is.

Also, the idea that children seeing porn is how sexual abuse happens is fully based on gut-disgust reactions and has genuinely nothing to do with the realities of the factors that actually give rise to sexual abuse. Of course it should not be possible or at least likely for kids to just accidentally stumble into porn, but that's true in general; nobody wants to be jumpscared with porn when they're trying to do some other shit. If some non-adult is out there seeking out sexual materials, all that matters is that they're keeping it to themselves and not trying to engage strangers online about it, and that they have a solid foundation of sexual education and media literacy on which to make smart, healthy decisions while doing so.

Sexual development, like all development, happens over time, and starts before adulthood. We need to accomodate the reality that exists, no matter how uncomfortable that reality is. Trying to push to make it impossible for teenagers to see porn is just divorced from reality, and the basis for trying to do so is anti-science. Figure out how to deal with it.

[avita-anarchy]

Folks forget how common a trope it was in movies from the 70s and 80s that the teenage boy would have a stack of racy or explicit magazines under his bed, or for teenage girls to swoon over the muscular lifeguard climbing or if the pool/ ocean. The awkwardness of "The Talk" in 90s media came up all the time and generally was a call from the parent for the teenager to be careful, rather than it being treated as SINFULL. Teenage sexuality was treated as funny because it was embarrassing for kids to get caught or be taught about it, but it wasn't this taboo subject that masses of people would jump to calling pedophilia.

[closet-keys]

"Our hegemonic ideas about sex are a product of society. Modern thinkers, like Medieval ones, continue to define women largely by their procreative potential. The concept of women engaging in sex in order to 'trap a man' hinges on the idea that they are baby-makers first and foremost. When it comes to sex, respectable women are never considered as sexual agents in and of themselves. They are involved because they wish to be mothers. In contrast, women who are interested in sex, or sex with more than one person, are often expressly presented as damaged, untrustworthy, and expressly unfeminine. The fact that we have accepted this framing would absolutely delight Medieval theologians. After all, 'women were created to serve men and help them multiply.' When we accept the framing of sex as something women engage in to have children, we're doing the work of the Medieval Church for them. They would probably be amazed to hear that women were naturally chaste and monogamous, but they would likely take it, provided we accepted that sex is only a means to a procreative end. Because of their idea that women's sexuality is depraved, Medieval thinkers spent their time marveling at women's sexual capacity and the pleasure that they experienced during sex, even if they thought it of lesser quality than men's. Our modern recasting of women as mere receptacles for men's sexual pleasure, on the other hand, has seen new ways of thinking about female orgasm. Indeed, evolutionary psychologists wonder why women orgasm at all, given that it is not necessary for reproduction. Some have tackled this quandary by arguing that women might experience pleasure during sex in order to 'seal the pair-bond' between themselves and men. Or to encourage 'sperm up-suck.' Most gallingly, some dismiss it as 'an incidental byproduct of male orgasm, much like male nipples' which apparently have no function and are incidental byproducts of the fact that females have nipples."

-Eleanor Janega, The Once and Future Sex: Going Medieval on Women's Roles in Society

[spaceshipsandpurpledrank]