[haemosexuality]

so hard being the girl who always aggressively hates everyones boyfriend

[chlorophyll--a]

???

[haemosexuality]

i hate men and think every girl and woman i know would be better off without them

[sapphsorrows]

"why do cis people get so mad when we call them cis it's literally what they are" idk why do you get so mad when people refer to you as your birth sex that's literally what you are

[thelesbianpoirot-deactivated202]

The thing about BDSM/stripping/pornography/prostitution that I critique is not about what the sub/victim/penetrated wants. I don't care to shame the person with the abuse and rape fantasy. People from oppressed groups who hate themselves will seek out means of self destruction and humiliation. They are taught to. It is what society trained them to do. It is not surprising that many young women (and young gay men) run towards violent sex, plastic surgery, extreme piercing, extreme tattooing, prostitution and exploitation. What other group is taught to hate themselves more? What other group is more death seeking? I am not shocked the groups with the highest rates suicide attempts, eating disorder, lowest record self esteem, poor body image, mocked the most in media, have high murder and sexual assault rates hate themselves and seek lifestyles that reflect or perpetuate their own destruction. "Choke me daddy," the 14yr old writes on her social media page, and gets likes of people thinking she cool, hot and progressive. She knows there are people who want to do horrible things to her, and if she lets them, and "enjoys" it, that is the closest she will get to love, attention, and praise. She reads and masturbates to rape fantasies in fanfiction/dark romance books because she is aware of the place society wants her in and was a victim of their concerted efforts to normalize and even eroticize her submission and degradation. She is not a product of free choice and individualism. She is a good student of society's bigotry and hatred. Proof of free choice would be her having the highest standards, self preservation and dignity. That is what would make her stand out amongst her peers. That is what would buck tradition. I have grown up around poor black people my entirely life, and watch many people destroy their lives with drugs, gangs, getting pregnant by multiple men, and many other social ills. Many of these things were avoidable, I avoided them, a few of my friends did, I wondered why they hadn't. And it's after I grew up that I realize many of those people didn't think they were capable of doing anything else, or were deserving of any other kind of life. When the world hates you, makes a systematic effort to destroy you every day, you listen and begin destroying yourself first. In a way to pretend you have total control over your life at all times.

I will not argue with a sub/pornstar/stripper/prostitute that she should be ashamed of herself. She already is. She wouldn't be doing this if she were raised to care for and respect herself by a loving just society. I will argue that her abusive dom, the sex buyer, rapist, and director (person in power exploiting them) needs to be tried for crimes and put down like an animal.

[watermelinoe]

"christian feminists" what's next, meat-eating vegans

[7244395]

this post feels like it’s lost some of its original context because I remember reblogging it in 2012 when I didn’t have a smart phone and smart phone ownership was much lower in general. So being on tumblr on Christmas meant being physically at a computer and being visibly unsocial if not completely removed from any festivities. Now everyone’s on social media every day of the year. A true heritage post really

[queen-mayhem]

So, okay. Some of my thoughts about how romance novels are Women Processing The Contradictions of Heterosexuality. This is not going to be a well-structured thing, it's just a messy collection of thoughts. Lower your expectations.

One of the universal truisms about a romance novel is that the male interest is always going to be a caricature of masculinity. This is true regardless of the context of the romance novel - Mr. Darcy and Christian Grey are the same kind of guy. The romance novel hero is tall, strong, rich or otherwise possessed of high status, emotionally closed-off, sexually promiscuous, and lowkey a little violent. Different heroes lean more or less into certain traits, and sometimes the tropes are subverted in suble ways. Sometimes the high-status hero is temporarily embarrassed. Sometimes he's not technically sexually promiscuous, but he still exudes raw sexuality. Sometimes he's the kind of guy who flexes social power instead of physical power - but he's still big and strong and he could be violent if he wanted to.

However, the romance novel hero always has a soft side - typically one that only the heroine is privy to. He plays piano, he loves his little sister, he takes care of his sick mom, he secretly dreams of being a father someday, whatever.

Meanwhile, the heroine is never a caricature of femininity. Not ever. She's usually smart (though perhaps naive), mouthy, highly independent, and a little on the tomboyish side.

The traditional interpretation of this is "wish fulfillment." Oh, it's a fantasy of the normal girl-next-door being "good enough" for this prince among men. And... yeah, sure, that's not an unfair analysis. But it is a shallow one.

Break down the traits of that "prince among men" and you end up with three discrete clusters: things that are just universally considered attractive (he's tall, rich, and good at sex!), things that are associated with masculinity as a social role (he's emotionally closed off, domineering, and violent!), and things that are neither (aw, he's secretly a softy!).

Now look at the typical story structure of a romance novel. The two characters meet, and they are instantly attracted to each other, but they also very quickly come to dislike each other or find some reason to discount that initial attraction. This is almost always caused by the "masculine" traits - his snobbishness, his violence, his controlling nature, etc. Then the couple overcomes that for a while, but they are pushed apart again, in a bigger way this time. This "big break" is usually caused by a conflict between the hero's extreme masculinity and the heroine's lack of feminine submissiveness. He's too controlling and she won't put up with it. He's too emotionally closed off and she refuses to be used sexually without emotional reciprocity. He cares too much about his status/wealth and she won't tolerate being treated as "less than."

Then - and here's the big part - the man overcomes this and grovels for the woman's forgiveness. His "softer side" is usually part of the story here, either in his realization that he was wrong or in how he begs for forgiveness. This is a critical part of a romance novel. It's not a trope that you can subvert or play with very much; it's an integral part of the story structure. The man literally overcomes his masculinity to become a better person. Meanwhile, at no point is the woman expected to become more feminine or more submissive or more tolerant of being treated poorly. She has her own character growth, but it is never in the sense of "becoming more submissive and feminine."

So, just in the bare-bones outline - a romance novel is a story of a man who overcomes male socialization and the limitations of the social role of masculinity to become a better person and partner.

And that's not even getting into some of the weirder tropes.

Romance novels very commonly involve tropes of violence - sexual or otherwise - and dubious consent. The man is always dominant in the bedroom. Not always in the full-on BDSM sense, but always in the sense that he is the one taking charge and the woman is the more passive partner.

But these scenes are always portrayed as pleasurable or sexy. Even if the woman didn't want it at first, she comes to want it. It's implied by the structure of the story that she really did want it, she just wouldn't admit to herself that she wanted it. If a romance novel is wish-fulfillment, it's not in the "prince among men" hero - it's in this trope right here. This is wish fulfillment in two ways. First, it solves the contradiction between the fact that women do feel sexual desire and the fact that it is extremely culturally taboo for a woman to feel sexual desire. (Real sexual desire, not a performance for men.) Sex that you didn't want but enjoyed anyway is the "perfect" solution. All the pleasure, none of the guilt or shame.

But it's also wish fulfillment in that it presents a very harsh reality of life for women who are attracted to men (the threat of sexual violence in a relationship) as something that is not scary or traumatic, but desirable and sexy. This is one of the great contradictions of heterosexuality - how can you love someone who hurts you? These stories solve the contradiction by creating a man who can hurt you, but doesn't. He's big, he's strong, he's controlling, he's sexually dominant and possessive - but he doesn't use those things to hurt you, only to bring you pleasure. Sometimes, this is actually the "big break" in the story, and it's literally the thing the man overcomes.

And this is what I mean about "processing the contradictions." A romance novel is about creating a narrative where all the contradictions of heterosexuality are resolved.

What are some of those contradictions?

Well, women who are attracted to men typically find features of male sexual dimorphism - like greater size and strength - attractive. But it's that same size and strength that enables men to hurt us like they do. How can you be so attracted to the thing that is the greatest danger to you? You create a man who is big and strong and scary to other people, but secretly a softy with a heart of gold to you.

Heterosexual women want sex with men, but women can't allow themselves to want sex. So they create a man who "just knows" all their secret desires and knows when "no means yes."

Hetero women want sex with men, but sex with men is also the biggest danger to them. So they create a narrative where that danger exists and is recognized, but is carefully subverted. Sometimes with that "no means yes" dynamic, but it's often by creating some kind of Plot Reason why they can't have sex but do it anyway, and that Plot Reason is symbolic of the danger of heterosexual sex. You know which romance novel is the best example here? Twilight. That metaphor was not remotely subtle.

And okay this is long and I have to go to bed, so TL;DR -

The purpose of a romance novel is to answer the question: If man dangerous, why sexy?

[munegirl]

“Pregnant person” “person with ovaries” PLEASE JUST SAY WOMAN THE AMOUNT OF PEOPLE WHO ARE PREGNANT THAT IDENTIFY AS SOMETHING ELSE VS THAT ARE FEMALE IS VERY FEW just.. it’s such a detached way to talk about pregnancy

[harrypotterfuryroad]

imagining a coming out scenario works for testing if any niche microidentity counts as lgbt and even when it's inconclusive it's at least still kinda funny

"mom, dad, i only date people i like, please don't kick me out"

"mom, dad, i like engaging people who can hold a conversation, do you still love me"

"mom, dad, i have close friends, is that okay"

[marta-bee]

The Abortion Absolutist

Warren Hern has been performing late abortions for half a century. After Roe, he is as busy with patients as ever.

This was an interesting read. Surprisingly nonpreachy given the subject; and well worth the time.

[the-truth-within-the-lie]

This is oaywalled but it made me weep with relief to see an honest recounting for once, so I’ve saved some good bits:

[the-truth-within-the-lie]

[friendlymathematician]

another one for the brain rot tag

Museum reclassifies Roman emperor as trans woman

It comes after classical texts quote the emperor saying "call me not Lord, for I am a Lady".

@feministclassicist

[femclasscirce]

The classical texts in question: the Historia Augusta (hugely unreliable) and 2 dudes who were not anywhere near the emperor so couldn't have recorded shit about his words (Cassius Dio & Herodian).

I'm pretty sure I already did a big post on Elagabalus but fuck it I'll do one again here because this is insane

[femclasscirce]

Alright I finally have time to write something about this. Happy to see people in the comments being spot-on:

Both are absolutely right.

Let's contextualise. Elabagabalus' real name was Varius Bassianus and he came to power after a civil war where he (or rather his militarily and politically savvy mother Julia Maesa) overthrew the emperor Macrinus. Varius Bassianus was from Syria, where he worshipped the god Heliogabalus as a priest. (This is important and I'll get back to it). As I said in my first rb, the 3 primary sources we have on him are all unreliable for different reasons, so the only things we know for sure about him are that he was 14 years old when he became emperor, tried to replace the Roman pantheon with a monotheistic cult to Heliogabalus, and got killed at 18. Everything else written about him was gossip, hearsay, and political vitriol.

Of course, the portrayal of Varius Bassianus is rather striking for modern people: among much, much else, he was said to have prostituted himself in the palace, slept with women but only to imitate them whilst with men, married guys while calling himself their wife, offered money to whomever could surgically give him female genitalia, and demanded to be called by feminine appellations like lady, mistress, queen, and Bassiana instead of Bassianus. (Actually something interesting about this naming thing is that, unlike men, women didn't get any first names/ praenomen in Rome. They were known by the feminine version of their family names, and an additional epithet like Prima, Secunda, Tertia, etc or Maiora/Minora. There was no way he could have been called Varia Bassiana, for example. I think this adds an extra level to the irony/misogyny of the whole situation, esp considering how uncritically it is adopted today).

But there were clear socio-political reasons why he was portrayed this way:

he was Syrian in a society which stereotyped men from Asia Minor as effeminate, sex-crazed cross-dressers.

He was specifically a Syrian priest, who were associated with self-castrating cross-dressers due to the cults of Cybele and Attis in Rome (which required their male priests to cut off their junk ritually and dress in women's garb, a reason why Roman men were legally prohibited from joining those cults)

he was a kid from Syria in a society whose primary contact with Syrian boys was through pueri delicati, child sex slaves specifically chosen from regions associated with high libido, sexual submissiveness, and male effeminacy, who were then forced into the feminine gender role to justify their sexual abuse by Roman men (the underlying reasoning was that they were not "real boys" so they were appropriate for sexual abuse)

he tried to replace the Roman pantheon with a monotheistic cult, which was a huge political faux pas considering how closely Romans tied the welfare of their state with pleasing the gods and maintaining a good relationship with them. For context, if he'd just added Heliogabalus to the pantheon, it would probably have been fine - people wouldve grumbled, but ultimately it wasn't that rare to add foreign gods to the pantheon. But replacing the whole thing with one god was considered a way of fundamentally endangering the state (which as a side-note is why Christians were persecuted).

Romans would construct portrayals of rulers according to rhetorical stereotypes called topoi (singular: topos) to create a particular image of them depending on whether they were "good" or "bad" based on cultural commonplaces. The topos of the bad ruler included themes like murder, gluttony, and - surprise, surprise - effeminacy. Roman writers associated specifically effeminacy with political ineptitude and moral weakness. It was used to vilify a lot of emperors and politicians (Catilina, Caesar, Augustus, Nero to name a few). So clearly gender roles were a bit part of political portrayals, especially since virtus, the core component of Roman masculinity, was considered essential for holding political power. So in short, good rulers= masculine, bad rulers= feminine.

But effeminacy was also used as a topos for the portrayal of conquered populations as submissive, to make them look inferior to [masculine] Romans by depicting them as female - especially Eastern provinces in Asia Minor. [Side note: this is also why pueri delicati ("delicate boys"=child sex slaves) were often imported from Asia Minor]. The portrayal of Varius Bassianus as hyper-effeminate is definitely unique in terms of how far people took it, but there are clear, substantiated, historico-cultural reasons for that. Martijn Icks, a scholar whose work I really recommend on the subject, called his portrayal a "topos run amok".

When you put everything together, and think about the fact that this was a teenage boy who was made emperor of a country who associated specifically boys from his background with submissive, prostituted, effeminate boy sex slaves and hypersexual cross-dressers, a kid who was viscerally hated by his subjects, who themselves were used to portrayals of bad rulers as effeminate because masculinity was directly equated with political competence... it just makes sense that he was portrayed this way.

So the reasons for Cassius Dio, Herodian, and the Historia Augusta depicting him this way are actually really complex and multilayered, and the fact that a MUSEUM is taking an evident political smear campaign at face value is insane to me. I read a few articles on the subject and it's crazy, the BBC for example interviewed an established Cambridge professor who was like, "we really can't take these texts at face value, this is political vitriol" and right after they interview a politician from the region (who hasn't sat in a single history class since high school) and he's like, "no, the texts say he asked to be called lord not lady, we're gonna trust that no questions asked". I saw another article that said an ancient history graduate, Ollie Burns, said there was evidence of him wanting SRS and he concludes that by literally just repeating what the ancient texts say without analyising them. Also - he's a graduate? Okay, of what? an undergrad, a masters? If it was a PhD they'd mention that. So they're ignoring actually established academics for some thesis that took 1 year max to write?? Which clearly didn't address any of the previous scholarship on the matter? I'd love to see his lit review. (Not to diss on undergrads or masters ppl btw, there's great work done there, but the resounding silence surrounding his work in Classical academia is very indicative that this wasn't thoroughly researched.)

So yeah. People are ignoring actual professionals bc 1 politician and 1 student said so.

[serial-unaliver-deactivated2024]

there was a tiktok I made a while ago basically saying "your abusive ex boyfriend is more likely a misogynist than a narcissist" and while most people agreed some said I was victim blaming(?) and that I couldn't know what their ex is like, and while obviously I don't, every fucking person describing their narcissistic ex is describing a typical misogynist. ask yourself, is this behavior you associate with narcissism directed at women or does he treat his male friends the same way? is his general functioning in life impaired?

many people don't seem to know this, but a mental disorder is NOT based on symptoms alone, it's based on how much the symptoms actually impair you in daily life. most people could look at a list of mental disorder symptoms and identify either themselves or someone else with them. as far as a narcissistic personality, we all know people who appear more self absorbed than others, but this is typically subclinical narcissism (presence of narcissistic traits without significant impairment of functioning) which is not a disorder. there is also a misunderstanding of what npd is. a narcissist is not a supervillain invincible to emotion. npd is a defensive reaction to trauma that lead to deep insecurity and fear of being seen as weak or vulnerable. so narcissists aren't actually "in love with themselves" at all and often are diagnosed when seeking help for other issues such as substance abuse resulting from their struggles.

this focus a lot of abused women in online pop psychology have on narcissism is particularly concerning because it completely glosses over misogyny which is literally a huge factor in violence against women. people really only know misogyny as a surface level thing. they don't know it can lead to family annihilation, for example, and is one reason most family annihilations are committed by the husband. it's always "this man is a sociopath" "this man is a narcissist" when the man's behavior is driven by ideology. I am so fucking tired of everything being tied to mental illness and left at that. you know what this leads to? courts "fixing" abusive men by...giving them anger management therapy. guess what? it doesn't fucking do anything because the problem isn't mental instability leading to anger, it's targeted, purposeful abuse. we are getting nowhere

[girlbenshapiro-deactivated20250]

literally hold men you date to a hire standard. call them out everytime theyre misogynistic, do not settle for a subpar man under any circumstances.

[bearie]

u can take birth control and be in mental agony or you can not take birth control and be in physical agony. the choice is yours and they are both awful. no we will not make any better alternatives 

[moidreform]

“Only radical feminists acknowledge that both religious & pornographic subordination of women/girls (two sides of the same coin) arises from male supremacy, biological essentialism/social Darwinism & socially constructed sex caste system, not from female nature.” 

     - /u/MistWeaver80

[gluten-free-pussy]

Something about “woke language” that fascinates me is that although it’s aim is to be inclusive and not offensive, it more often than not does the exact opposite. At best it’s comical and at worst it’s downright dehumanizing. So like for example you could have someone making commentary on race relations and use “white people” and then refer to people of colour as “black and brown bodies” in the same sentence. I had a friend of mine invite me to a “gender inclusive” group thing on Facebook and group said it was open to “men and non men”. So now I as a black woman am both subsequently a “black body and a non man”. My femaleness and my humanity are nonexistent. Not to mention that unless you’re deep in the trenches of this progressive shit, this nebulous language is very confusing and generally inefficient

[tiktoks-for-dead-pope]

[user87262893]

Loving seeing this sort of moment of representation for GNC kids! Little boys like Evan deserve to see themselves in older men, to know they can grow up authentically 🖤

[pillarsalt]