#it's the puritanical ideas of sex and how it harms women

[femperor]

1800s: It's okay for a woman to be a teacher, but she has to quit if she gets married.

2000s: it's okay for a woman to be a teacher, but she has to quit if anybody finds out she has an active sex life or used to do porn ever even once.

[cinnamonest]

I'm not looking to start shit so I'm not linking it or anything, but you may have seen a recent anti-dark-content post circulating with a lot of notes making rounds in the x reader sphere and while I have nothing against people posting their feelings in their own private spaces, every time I see these kinds of posts there's a lot of misinformation that gets regurgitated in the reblogs/replies and I saw what looked like a battlezone in the replies, so.

I know posts like that can be very jarring and affects people like my readers, so to combat misinformation/shaming for anyone who saw it, I'm going to share some of my information on combatting fandom puritanism/misogyny/kinkshaming in its most common forms.

The most important fact, if you read nothing else, is this:

Most women have rape fantasies.

62% to be exact. I think the most pervasive myth on this content is that consumers are "weird" for it, when the numbers don't indicate that. You're in the majority!

The vast majority of people who have rape fantasies do not put them into practice in real life. A variety of factors can determine whether or not they do, particularly specific psychiatric disorders. (X)

To specifically address common harmful and pervasive myths:

the "go to therapy!" line

Generally any academic or professional resource will immediately tell you that consuming and engaging in "dark" fantasies is accepted and encouraged by mainstream psychiatry and part of the professional education for psychiatrists. (This also used to be pretty well-known until like the last 5 years or so, not sure why that changed.)

Here are some particularly insightful resources:

1) This article by Dr. David Wahl, in my opinion, hands-down does the best job of simply and thoroughly explaining why these fantasies occur and why couples practice CNC, as well as the fact that they are both harmless, psychologically beneficial to those with them, and not at all correlated to real-life rape.

2) Dr. Claudia Six has some of the best and most thorough material out there on the subject, specifically explaining why this is taught in mainstream academia psychology and how it is incredibly helpful to rape victims (X).

3) Lisa Diamond is a professional who focuses on this subject a lot, and was featured in the documentary "The Dilemma of Desire," in which she specifically focuses on how these fantasies are not correlated to real-life desires. (X)

4) Dr. Casey Lyle has specifically talked a lot on his socials about how fantasies, even in men/the perspective of the offender, do not correlate to actual risk of offending.

5) This article is not by a professional, but from the perspective of a survivor discussing how it is beneficial to survivors.

the "why would you want that?" line

The idea that fictional tastes = what you want to happen to you in real life is actually of misogynistic origin. I don't want to seek out or add links on this one, but if you're really curious, you can research about how the idea that "women read rape fiction, that means they secretly want rape!" was originally a classic "red pill"/MGTOW/4chan talking point that made its way into mainstream dialogue and thus the public mind in the last 15 years or so due to the incel epidemic popularizing those communities.

the "it's only valid for survivors then!" line

On one hand, yes it's very important to acknowledge that trauma victims use it to cope, however I feel that over-emphasizing that gives the impression that non-victims should be excluded from consumption of dark content, so to clarify, it's a very valid means for all women. Many women who have not personally experienced rape still fantasize about it, and that's fine.

The full explanation as to why this is true for many of them would be lengthy (and addressed in the aforementioned Dilemma of Desire documentary), but in the simplest terms, nonconsensual sex is the only context in which patriarchal society permits women to have sex at all without feeling guilt. For many women, particularly those in more heavily misogynistic or religious cultures, these fantasies are appealing because the idea of consensual sex may give them feelings of shame, guilt, "sin," etc. These fantasies allow them to experience the feeling of being desired without guilt of participation.

No society on earth is free of the psychological grip that cultural misogyny has on women, and shaming women for adapting to the conditions they are forced to exist under is as harmful as the misogyny that causes it itself.

ALL women experience a form of psychological trauma inherent to female childhood and female adolescence in a patriarchal world, and that is just as valid as coping with individual traumatic events.

Good resources on the subject of why women have these fantasies and how they are helpful in general:

(X) (X)

The "what you consume will make you do it in real life!" myth

Although the resources above already address this, it's important to establish why this myth is so prevalent and what its origins are.

The idea that consuming media with dark themes leads to or indicates desires to replicate those acts is a residual element of two major events:

1) Puritan revival culture, popularized in the US and UK in the 90s and 2000s (also known as "Satanic Panic"). A major facet of this movement was TV megachurch preachers making money off of exploiting well-meaning but paranoid parents into believing that your child playing Dungeons and Dragons or Pokemon would make them future serial killers and lure them into satanic cults. (X)

2) at the tail end of this, it was cemented in the public mind as a cultural ripple aftershock of the Columbine shooting, where this sentiment became popularized as the general public blamed violent video games like Doom and "dark" music like Marilyn Manson (whose life was temporarily completely upended by the events and took him years to recover/be safe from) for the 1999 shooting. This event had MASSIVE permanent and global effects in all sorts of ways that the public often underestimates the sheer scope of, notably that it solidified, prolonged, and, in the minds of many, "proved" the paranoias of the preexisting Satanic Panic. (X) This established a precedent, leading to virtually any major horrible event being blamed on the perpetrator's media consumption, including murder and sex crimes.

What this myth ignores in the cases it references (the slenderman stabbings, columbine, sasebo slashing, batman shooting, etc) is two crucial facts: that hundreds of millions of people consume the same media with no negative effects (helpful effects even), and that in every single case cited as "evidence" to the claim, the perpetrator had a preexisting psychiatric condition correlated to acts of violence (which usually went ignored, downplayed and even accelerated/worsened by those around them rather than the help they needed).

Sorry for the wall of text, but I feel an ethical obligation to combat this kind of misinformation, and I hope these resources are helpful for those who may be negatively affected by common misunderstandings.

You are not abnormal or wrong for the fictional content you consume or the fantasies you have!

[queer-geordie-nerd]

As a person on the ace spectrum, I'm finding an increasingly disturbing tendency in these circles to viewing ourselves as somehow "better" or "above" people who have sex, enjoy sex, enjoy watching sex scenes in media, or engage positively with sex or sexual content in any way.

Perhaps it's because I'm an extremely sex positive aego, though sex averse for myself (which basically means I do often find people attractive, enjoy engaging with sexual content, have private fantasies and am happy going solo but I have absolutely zero desire to ever have sexual contact with another person) I just find the judgemental puritanism I see so much of in these spaces disturbing - a particular sentiment I see very, very often is that movies/TV shows shouldn't have sex scenes in them because we, the audience, haven't "consented" to seeing them (leaving aside the gobsmacking offensiveness in equating watching fake sex on screen with the violation of sexual assault), and that people who do enjoy them are obviously stupid for doing so.

To be clear, I'm not saying that there's something wrong with being sex repulsed or averse and not wanting to engage with such content. Where you lose me is where you decide that something that is a normal, healthy part of life for most people is something shameful and dirty that should be hidden away and not talked about, because of your personal feelings.

I shouldn't need to tell anyone how much harm such ideas have caused throughout history, especially for women and queer people.

[butmakeitgayblog]

Just to throw in a couple points real quick (because I can never keep an opinion to myself 😔 sorry), I personally kind of dislike the idea of a male and female gaze — not because I disagree with the concept of fetishism and objectification existing, they ABSOLUTELY do, but because of what people, particularly online, have come to accept they mean.

There has recently been discourse surrounding Love Lies Bleeding, a film created almost solely by queer women, “catering to the male gaze” which… I’m sure I don’t need to explain how silly that is lmao. I think this new wave of leftists clutching their pearls over literally any sign of sexual attraction and considering it to be synonymous with objectification has distorted people’s views of what these terms actually mean and have resulted in their gross misuse. Not to make this about me 💅🏻 but I see a lot of this similar discourse about trans people BY CIS PEOPLE whom are trying to be good allies by basically claiming that any sign of sexual attraction towards a trans person’s body is inherently fetishistic which I can’t lie… I kind of consider to be transphobic itself lol? You’re allowed to be sexually attracted to trans people and express that, no matter how their bodies look! The point at which it becomes fetishistic relies primarily on the WAY you express that and the language used — and I think that can apply to queer people in general too. I personally (and others may feel differently!) have zero issue with cis people enjoying trans NSFW content, and I also have no problem with straight women enjoying MLM content; because most of the time, I can tell from the LANGUAGE they use whether or not they are fetishising.

Point being, fetishism and objectification can go ALL ways and I don’t think people need to give excuses as to why they enjoy a certain type of content as long as it isn’t actively harming anyone. But I obviously can’t speak for everyone (especially queer women, I only identified as one for a year or two when I was a preteen lol) and people’s experiences tend to shape their opinions on these things 😅

Right and that's why I firmly stand behind my initial post about how it's no one's job to police people for what kind of content they consume! Because we don't know their motivations for how ot why they personally are interacting/consuming the work. It's incredibly easy to write off all enjoyment of a specific brand of content as fetishizing or sexualization when in reality, for the consumer it isn't that at all. My only point on the last ask was that sometimes, sometimes, it's easy to actually be doing exactly that (fetishizing etc) and not realizing it.

Intentions matter absolutely, but they're not the be-all-end-all of reality. It's like if I as a white person were to say something racist without realizing it was racist. That doesn't negate the racism, and it doesn't absolve me of my culpability, because my ignorance to my actions doesn't supercede my impact. You can be guilty of something without knowing that you are, and that's something you as person have to evaluate and confront on a personal basis. That was my only point in relation to what that anon said.

Again to reiterate, that is NOT saying that everyone who prefers queer work to straight work is guilty of that, because they're not. Full stop. And that alone is why I don't think anyone has or should have the authority to pass judgment on who can and can't consume certain kinds of media. Because, like you said, then you start wading into the murky waters of painting everyone with a broad brush, throwing accusations around that are universally damning despite not actually being universally true. And considering we're living in a period where puritan anti-sex brainrot is on the rise (alongside a deeply unsettling culture of condemnation over every little thing), opening that door can become very dangerous very fast. We're seeing it already.

I will tack on just as a thought regarding the trans character issue, I think that's kind of a perfect example of all these ideas aligning. Just in the most bare bones way of putting it: there is nothing inherently fetishizing about a cis person enjoying work including trans characters. There's nothing inherently fetishizing about a cis person enjoying, specifically, smut involving trans characters. There is nothing inherently fetishizing about a cis person preferring trans character stories over other kinds of media. However, if all they as a cis person consume is extremely sexualized renditions of trans characters, if their only interest in trans characters is porn - generally mostly devoid of complex storylines that create a fully rounded character -, then yeah I do think that's something they on an individual basis need to evaluate about themselves, because it's the difference between having a sexual attraction to a subsection of people versus seeing those same people as purely sexual objects. Does that make sense?

Same can be true for any other queer content being consumed by people that aren't historically the target audience.

But again, it's not really anyone else's place to make that call for anyone else.

[doctordragon]

you do know that by transitioning to a masc aligned gender identity you don’t have to hate women or be radically pro-sex to the point of supporting harmful things. like those two things don’t have to go hand in hand. you do know that

also, your arguments are just asinine. yes, all work is degrading, but it is no way comparable to the shame and violation which comes with raped all day for money that you dont get. no one is trafficked and forced to become a chiropractor/masseuse/etc. also, you are against capitalist society, and yet you are somehow still pro sex work? you cannot agree that all work is degrading and yet delegate one type that is particularly degrading and harmful as okay or even good.

also, you cant compare hierarchical society in the workplace (as bad as it may be) to actual, real world forced sex. no one is forcing you to have an office job

consent can’t be bought for the right price. if all work is non consensual what do you call non consensual sex. i think you know

First of all, you have absolutely no right to call me a woman hater you projecting motherfucker. You literally told me you think all men should die and that I should kill myself for being a man. If that's not you, stop being a fucking coward and prove it and talk to me off anon. Meanwhile I have been nothing but supportive towards women and women's issues, especially because almost all of them still affect me as a trans man.

I am radically pro sex. Our culture's views on sex are incredibly toxic and unhealthy. Your puritanical bullshit is only contributing to this toxicity. Sex is a neutral act. You can use all sorts of provocative language to describe it, but ultimately it's not that much different than any other activity people can do together. Your attitude towards sex as inherently violating, intimate, and shameful comes from the fact that you are a 17 year old asexual teenager. Not everyone views sex the way you do.

And how many times do I have to tell you, you are minimizing workplace abuse. My friend had her legs PERMANENTLY FUCKING DESTROYED from working at Starbucks out of the managers convenience. She literally told you that she would rather be "forced" (because you don't believe sex workers can give consent) into sex with strangers than have to live with her shitty legs. Amazon warehouse workers literally died because they weren't allowed to leave the warehouses during a deadly tornado. And that's just in North America. The electronics you are typing this ask out were made with slavery. The lengths you go to dismiss workplace abuse are astounding.

Anyway, you have yet to provide an argument against SEX WORK ITSELF. You're just arguing against trafficking and rape, and of fucking course those are bad. But, trafficking and rape are not inherit to sex work just like forcing people to stay in a building during a tornado isn't inherit to warehouse work. The problem isn't sex work itself, it's the abusive practices in the sw industry and societal factors that force people into sex work. If people were being trafficked into office jobs, would you be against any job sitting in front of a computer? If being a non trafficked masseuse is fine, what's wrong with being a non trafficked sex worker?

And yes, all work is degrading because we live in a capitalist society. The problem is the capitalism, not the work itself. In a perfect socialist utopia, people would still do work because we have a society that needs running. And there would still be sex work because there will ALWAYS be sex work.

I still have no idea what your actual policy positions are, unless they're just coming online, complaining about the concept of sex work, and misgendering trans men, which is very ineffective. There will always be sex work, so what measures do you want to take to ensure sex worker protections? I have realistic goals and policies that would tangibly make the lives of real sex workers better. All you have is a shoddy argument that sex workers are too stupid to know what's best for them or give consent.

And again, you can't easily sort things into "consensual" and "non consensual" with a hard line. Of course work in our society isn't fully consensual. The problem here isn't the presence of sex - sex is completely neutral - it's the coercive factors. If you can acknowledge the difference between working a minimum wage job and slavery, you can acknowledge the difference between a sex slave and a sex worker.

[frenchifries]

i dunno how to articulate this without sounding like a deranged person (and trying not to include every possible caveat/inb4/aside for the sake of some semblence of brevity) but tbh i really hate the current concept of "sex positivity"—frankly i think it reeks of liberal feminism and at this point i consider the term to be a massive red flag.

because it's like... the premise started as "people usually have sex because it is an enjoyable experience, so it's shitty to shame & demonize people, especially women, for having or wanting 'too much' sex or the 'wrong kind' of sex" which—yeah! obviously!

but i feel like it very quickly transitioned into "ALL sex is ALWAYS GOOD and VALID!!!! let's ignore the ways in which women are often (directly & indirectly) coerced into negative sexual situations through an intersection of rape culture, compulsory heterosexuality, and unwanted sexualization starting from a young age; let's ignore the fact that the concept of 'slut-shaming' even exists in the first place because of the unspoken underlying assumption that sex exists for men's gratification at the expense (or at least inconvenience) of women, and not as something that a woman could actively want or enjoy for her own sake (and the fact that that assumption only exists because that's how many men view & treat the women they sleep with); if you acknowledge any of those things you're a regressive puritanical prude!"

that's not even really getting into how men have historically taken advantage of any sort of sexual liberation movement to pressure women into sleeping with them under the guise of progressivism, again enacting it as a one-sided conquest and not something mutually enjoyable, because god forbid they recognize or respect the humanity & desires of women... nor the ways mainstream media, cultural messaging, and even educational resources tend to reinforce these harmful ideas... NOR the ways this intersects with "choice feminism" and the idea that succumbing to patriarchal demands is ~always valid~ and not something that should ever be interrogated...

basically instead of acknowledging or contending with any of the larger social & cultural issues at hand (and how they interact across various axes of oppression) people would once again rather frame everything through the lens of individual choices and behaviors. i don't know if it's out of pure ignorance or deliberate refusal, but it sucks being made to feel like i'm the weird one for thinking there's a problem. like... am i crazy? am i really the only person who thinks about this kind of stuff?

[prettyboykatsuki]

I’m a little curious as to why you’re against the sentiment of anti porn, do you mind elaborating? Ik its a controversial topic so feel free to ignore

ill do my best to keep it as brief as possible but this is a very nuanced topic of conversation that i could easily write a dissertation on so ill try sparing you the tangents and summarize my feelings. also this is not something im willing to debate about in case anyone is feeling the need to

many of the anti-porn and anti-sexwork talking points are rehashing's of evangelical and puritan ideas about the sanctity of sex and fail to consider the practical applications of banning these industries. they're often not oriented at the protection of sex-workers and focus explicitly on the victimhood narrative of womanhood (which is how they transition quickly into terf rhetoric but i digress)

in addition, they talk about the acts of sex-work like they're uniquely exploitative. we live in a globalized society, run on commodification.

one of the most exploitative industries in the world is agriculture. chocolate in particular is run massively on child labor below the hemisphere. chocolate can be addictive, bad for health, and overall damaging to the body. many of the same arguments people use for the banning of porn.

but we never say to outright ban chocolate or agriculture. we don't say "well lets just all stop eating chocolate" rather, we're able to insert a degree of separation between the theoretical of those industries to the practical applications of prohibition. it's not that consumption of chocolate is inherently bad or wrong, but rather it requires moderation and it requires protections in order to check for the quality of life of producer and consumer

misogyny present in adult films is not innate to sex work but there is certainly gendered exploitation. it can perpetuate misogyny, and it can be harmful. we live in a misogynistic and sexist society. adult film and sex work interact with intersections of oppression in the same way that everything else does. all women's labor is informed by patriarchy and sexuality. and sex work is no exception to this rule.

but the implication that through banning pornography and full-service sex work and shaming consumers we will achieve liberation is backwards and counterproductive. prohibition and incarceration is a failure of the system. porn and sex work has existed since the beginning of modern civilization. it will continue to exist even if we do everything in our power to prevent that.

my issue with almost all of the anti-porn rhetoric is it's insistence that it is the key to fixing a societal issue(patriarchy) that has existed since the beginning of man all while speaking over the people most effected by it's existence which are sex-workers

everything in the world is entitled to critique, and pornography is no exception to this rule. sex-work is no exception to this rule. but anti-porn is not just industry critical, rather it makes its point by promoting ideologically purity disguised as feminism. many of the articles used to make points about anti-porn are taken directly from moralistic conservatives on the very far right.

this isn't even touching on the concepts of sexual liberation. again, something i could probably go on about. but yeah i dont like the anti-porn crowd

[aguadyne]

this new wave of, and I hate using this word, puritanical lens on anything nsfw or even just nude is genuinely disturbing to me. there is someone in the notes of the previous post basically saying that all forms of erotica aside from a few written ones are all inherently abusive, exploitive, pedophilic or misogynistic. which is a terrible idea to have stowed away in your mind to begin with since you equate anyone consuming nsfw content with these horrific ideals, but also it's just, not true?

I'm not gonna argue against the porn industry contributing to misogynistic, racist, lesbophobic, transphobic, etc stigma. I'm not going to argue against how normalized and encouraged it is for 18 year old girls to be pushed into becoming cam girls. I'm not going to argue that a lot of hentai revolves around rape fetishes and lolicon. I would be stupid to do so. but just because bigger, well known names in the industry do these things doesn't mean the average person does.

the random straight couple uploading videos of the girlfriend getting out every few months isn't contributing to any harmful ideals. the trans women posting pictures of themselves with a tail butt plug aren't doing anything wrong. the gay guy who draws bara men exclusively fucking when sweaty and stinky isn't hurting anybody. and acting like these people don't exist, don't deserve to be paid for their time and work, don't deserve to be treated with respect (nor their consumers!) is just wrong and unnecessary. and it also leaves us usually with just these types thinking written erotica is the only sacred type, when that's really not the case as we see with fanfiction sites and YA erotica targeted towards women especially

I think a lot of this comes down to the idea that being above sex, sexual wants and desires is more intelligent, morally correct and more desirable- being completely absent of fetishes, any sort of scandalous material or even thinking of anything outside of sex with your partner (if even that) is what people should strive for, i guess, and if you do any more than that you're a freak and you should be ashamed. I'm not really sure where I'm trying to go with this and perhaps I shouldn't care too much but it's almost always the "I'm [this this and this minority] and I think porn is wrong so you should too!" types saying this and it's like okay. anything else you think is morally reprehensible because it makes you mildly uncomfortable?

[thepsychologytemple]

Are men born evil?

Empathy isn't excusing.

In psychology's quest to understand why something happened so that it doesn't happen again, we'll often find the world isn't black or white, and that it's not so easy as to call someone a monster or a psychopath. Very often, people who do harm are people who have suffered tremendous harm and trauma themselves, and psychology wouldn't be what it is if it didn't acknowledge it.

That doesn't mean that we're justifying violence and providing excuses. We're not defending anyone. But it is important to have enough empathy to understand, if you do harm to someone, that someone will be affected and depending on the gravity, the person might be scarred for life, which might make them end up doing harm to others.

Puritans believed that children were born inherently evil and had to be punished to be freed of sin, which was why physical punishment of children was perfectly normal in the past. It has only been in the last thirty years or so that Rousseau's 18th century point of view has become more popular. His was the Romantic idea that children were born good, and were corrupted through life. That's the modern, more popular view, and the reason hitting children became frowned upon.

So decide. Which is your view? mine is Rousseau's. I'm with the Romantics. Like many psychologists, I believe we aren't born evil, although we might be born seriously ill, like with schizophrenia or psychosis. So when as a woman, I had to ask myself, why is there such tremendous violence from men towards women? I studied history.

As a scientist and researcher, I went back to see what might explain all this rage men walk around with, all the hatred towards women. In psychology it tends to be related to a hatred towards the mother (the first woman men are supposed to love, albeit not romantically), and in fact, most men who are arresteed for domestic violence have a history of violence towards their mothers first, but we're also studying how violence in childhood affected boys then men. It has been proven that there's quite the link between children that grow up with absent parents, alcoholic parents, addicts or violent parents, and those children becoming violent abusers in adulthood.

In fact, there's enough studied on the subject that I'm confident when I say no, men aren't inherently evil. A boy isn't born hating women. A baby boy doesn't understand misogyny, or why would a woman be bad for them, or why would he hate women. A baby boy grows up and is being taught violence and hatred, often, by being submitted to it. Is being taught what "true men" do or don't, and if the idea of "true men" they are taught is "don't cry, don't show emotion, don't be a sissy, don't be queer, just man up, own your woman, own your family, captain the ship your home and family is, you're the boss", that's inevitably going to have drastic, horrible consequences for him, for his future partners, for their children, for women...

Denying this is not only absurd and a waste of your time, considering how quickly it will be for you to open some books and go online and find this has been widely studied already. But also, denying it to say "men are just born evil" means you're not holding adults accountable. You're denying the impact violent parents have on children. Denying the trauma that misogyny and sex-based violence have not just in girls and women, but also in boys. Misogyny ruins EVERYBODY.

Yeah, women and girls are the ones getting killed, most of the time. But little boys (children) are the ones being turned into murderers, often by the sexist, misogynystic far-right. Violence rates keep going on, there are more gang violence and stabbings than ever, and always because of boys keep being transformed into grown up killing machines. And it's up to us to figure out why, and stop it.

[sleepyowlet]

I mean, bidoof's law is hilarious, but I've noticed a growing trend on this site of shaming people you disagree with for their sexual proclivities and using those to invalidate what they have to say.

I've seen (and experienced this myself) people being shamed and having their opinions discounted for being kinksters, for shipping, and for having other paraphiliae. Especially women.

Guys. This is some ugly neo-puritan bullshit. People are allowed to have all kinds of opinions, and even if they actually are openly antisemitic or racist, or queerphobic? Fucking tell them off for being antisemites, tell them off for being racists, and tell them off for being queerphobic. But don't bring their sexual proclivities into this.

Correlation is not causation, and all you're doing is shaming people for things nobody ought to be ashamed of. Some of us have sex lives. Some of us are into weird shit. As long as we're not harming anyone (aka consenting adults only), how is any of that any of your business??? How does who or how we like to fuck have anything to do with what we have to say on other issues?

I resent this idea that the only people who are worth listening to are the ones who like to have hearts and rainbows missionary in the dark.

[just-antithings]

novel-length ask warning! also a lot of discussion of sex negativity and sex in general fyi, plus some homophobia/transphobia. i have an anti-adjacent horrifying story the vestiges of my brain spat out that i just totally forgot, please buckle in...some details might be off but i'm certain most of this is accurate. how could i forget such a trainwreck?

so i was in this fandom some years ago, like 7-8 years i think, and there was a popular blog. it was run by a few people iirc and they would accept submissions of fanworks to show off. pretty typical. but they created a nsfw blog to keep stuff separate for people who didn't want to see nsfw content of this fandom.

all good so far, right? but then came trouble. at first the nsfw blog was just featuring saucy art and fics. then people started coming to the blog with sex questions. and that's a little odd to ask a fandom based blog but nothing inherently harmful since it was on topic, and i feel there may have been some younger people trying to anonymously get resources from a familiar space. it started out pretty innocuous, like how do you be safe while with a partner, how do you learn what you like, body safe materials etc. the responses by the mods were pretty standard, and they'd give a link or two to some useful info.

then it started getting fuckin weird. their responses were pretty much devolving into all fearmongering sex negative bullshit. off my head they argued (paraphrasing): anal is disgusting and it will cause you to get sick and die so if you're not a cis gay man don't do it and even if you are don't do it you nasty demon. you shouldn't need a sex toy to get off, you're just poisoned by porn if you can't experience enough pleasure by using your imagination and a hand. (nevermind anorgasmia right) don't look at porn if you're in a relationship but don't have sex with your partner either because that's what society wants from you and it's bad. they said you should 'explore your body' but also masturbation was horrible and sinful and having desire means there's something wrong with you.

maybe the blog switched mods? i have no fucking idea. i'm like, you guys were doing okay before then the vengeful spirit of a puritan ghost fucking possessed the blog???

they had an anon write in and she was asking about tips for dealing with dysphoria as a trans woman and not being able to shave. these absolute idiots were like shaving is a construct forced onto women to get rid of natural body hair, so 'just don't be dysphoric dummy!!' as if it's that simple! it was so cruel and dismissive. and they were kind of insinuating she was less of a woman bc of her discomfort with body hair. it made me so fucking pissed at the time.

but they continued to reblog nsfw fanart of characters and guess what? some of em were having sex in the pics, just what the mods said you shouldn't do!! holy fuck!!

and even more, on the main blog they fucking publicly shamed this person for creating a fanwork inspired by their headcanons, saying it was disgusting torture porn and they should be locked up. best part of all--it was extremely mild gore. pg-13 movies have more violence. like the fic had one character stab the other in the shoulder iirc and they tussled a little. that's all. wowie. the canon for this fandom HAD MORE VIOLENCE.

i hope that person kept writing, but i doubt it after being so summarily rejected and having their name shared around...fucking hell man.

so for anyone reading this please do not get sex ed from fandom blogs unless they're really competent but i have never seen such a thing so yeah no. try scarleteen i think they're good?

but like these mods had to have been radfems right? right???

i will step down from my podium of horrors now but whoever posts this i would love to hear your thoughts on my batshit little tale.

my thoughts are that was a wild ride from start to finish

also yeah you should never get your sex ed from fandom, get it from somewhere reliable like scarletteen

[ghcstvalleychief]

HI. I was reading your post/s about fetishizing gay men and I wonder if you would clarify what you would think of as 'red flags' (I'm not sure how to explain quite what I mean). I'm het female and have been watching and reading mm for years, mostly because I prefer the power dynamic, amongst other things, compared to mf, and watch mainly Asian series and films. Europe and the US don't do anything like the quality you get abroad. I don't believe I'm fetishizing at all, but it occurred to me to make sure? This probably sounds a really odd question, I hope you don't mind me asking - I'm feeling a bit weird and unsure as to whether this might be seen as maybe wrong. I'd like to think I'm not at all phobic, I work with a lot of people in the community and from all countries (we all happen to work in the same office, I mean), and I'd cut down anyone who said anything phobic, and I have, so there's that in my defence? If needed? I'm rambling now, sorry, I've got a bit tied into a knot about whether it's ok to prefer bl (and the occasional gl) stories to anything else and I wonder if you'd mind replying? I hope I've made sense, and I'm going anon so you can be as honest as necessary. Thank you

If you find yourself overly invested in the sexual nature of their relationship AND you're not interested in the other non-sexual aspects of the relationship, then that's probably a red flag. If you find yourself rolling your eyes or generally being disinterested when these people talk about the romantic aspect of their relationship and the issues they face being in said relationship, then that's probably a red flag. If the idea of these people engaging in things that aren't sexual in nature bore you or annoy you, then that's definitely an issue. The important thing to note about these statements is the use of 'and' in my first statement there. It's not an either/or thing. It has to be both to be considered a red flag, in my opinion. The former part of that statement alone isn't enough to be considered a red flag. To me, it's not. We're all sexual beings by nature, so it's normal to be interested in the sexuality of these characters. Why? Most of our countries are puritanical; there are varying degrees of that puritanical nature but I think most of our countries aren't as sex-positive as they seem. As a result, we're curious about it. It's something that interests us organically.

And yes, I do believe that some people can use these mediums to explore their own sexuality and sexual orientation. However, I truly believe that we must analyze and examine the things we take interest in. Especially since we know these things can absolutely have an adverse effect on the real lives of individuals who fit this mold. Even if you may realize that you're not straight at the end of your exploration, you must still unpack and understand why certain behaviors and actions you had in the past caused harm to others. None of these things exist in a vacuum. None of it. At the end of the day, intent doesn't negate impact. Even if your intentions aren't malicious, your impact could still cause harm to real life people in a very big way.

In regards to preferring BL over GL, it goes back to what I just mentioned. Why? The reason I bring that particular notion up is because it's like with straight men and straight women in real life. Straight men love the idea of two women getting it on but they cringe and gag when they see two men doing the same thing. Straight women love the idea of two men getting it on but they lose their shit (and not in a good way) when they see two women doing the same thing. Essentially, that's usually a tell-tell sign because both of these situations are mlm and wlw engaging in the same behavior but we all know there's a reason why they would be okay with one scenario and not the other. Straight men love two women because they can fantasize about it becoming a threesome with them being the center of it. They don't like the idea of two men because they're homophobic and they can't picture themselves benefitting from that particular dynamic in any way, shape, or form.

Whereas straight women like the idea of two masculine-presenting bodies engaging in that particular activity because it arouses them, but they don't like the idea of two women because it does nothing for them either. It all comes back to sex. In neither scenario would the straight people even think to care about the non-sexual aspects of these people's lives. They don't care about their hopes, dreams, ambitions, thoughts, and beliefs because those things don't allow anyone else to receive fulfilment in terms of sexual gratification. It all boils down to homophobia. You don't see their non-sexual activities as valid because they're not straight. You only see their sexual activities as valid because it arouses you and brings you sexual gratification.

The biggest red flag is whether or not you see these people as human beings. Are they people to you? Or are they mere vessels to satisfy you sexually? Are they vessels only to be used for your sexual gratification? Fetishization is the idea of you simply seeing these human beings as sexual objects as nothing more and nothing less. If you only see them as sexual creatures, then that's a major red flag. All in all, the fact that you're concerned about it is a good sign though. You're genuinely concerned that you could be engaging in this behavior without knowing it, so I'd say you're probably fine, anon.

[cipheramnesia]

what's the difference between a radfem and a terf? i know what terf means (and /ew/); are radfems the same thing?

TERF (by the RF) is one of the subset of Radical Feminists, or really more a behavior of, but whatever.

My history is a but rusty, but in its infancy, radical feminism was a positive moment about women’s liberation and sexual independence.

However, somewhere along the line it became an essentialist philosophy around the idea that maleness is inherently bad - morally, physically, socially, etc - which moved it from a liberating philosophy into an authoritarian philosophy concerned with rigidly enforcing social hierarchy.

“All masculinity is bad/evil” is the core value, which you see a lot in posts about men being bad at relationships or stuff like that. And conversely women are characterized as inherently good, like morally and emotionally and whatever.

Because of the innate requirement for all masculinity to be fundamentally wrong, a lot of stuff has got wrapped up into it. This includes gender, sexuality, and culture.

Gender you pretty much know - if maleness is innately bad, it follows that it is not possible for gender to be either mutable or ambiguous. Hence, trans exclusionary. Also featuring intersex erasure as a special attack.

However, immutability of gender means restriction of sexuality. Anything outside of strict heterosexuality or homosexuality acknowledges the potential of genders outside the binary to exist, and thus allows for ambiguity and mutability. Bisexual is barely tolerated but allowed because it is perceived by radfems as meaning “only men or women.” Thus radfems are principally opposed to anything that isn’t LGB - pan, ace, aro, demi, whatever. They are too vague.

Related to sexuality is the principle that male sexuality is inherently violent, and that flagrant expressions of lust are inherently male. Radical feminism has generally puritanical sentiments about sex in general. Because lust is male (bad) but women are good, when women have sex it is only an act of purity and sanctity of extraordinary value. Your basic virgin / whore dichotomy really. Women who have too much sex are too close to male, and bad.

Sex work, pornography, and similar are also considered inherently violent and destructive. This is where the Sex Worker Exclusionary Radical Feminist Behavior is located. If you see writing about being anti-kink, anti-porn, how all porn is violent, how all sex work is violent, how all kink is violent, etc - this is also radical feminism. It links back to the idea that sex must be an inviolate act of purity, and that lustful sex is inherent male and bad.

Now, like any industry of fuzzy legality and in any kind of work generally, there are real problems in the sex work industry, which is worth noting, but typically the solutions radical feminists want are, according to sex workers, more harmful than helpful. Usually radical feminists want increased criminalization, and harsher penalties which hurts (you guessed it) the individual sex workers much more than say the average person running a pornography company. Hence why de-criminalization is what sex workers usually support.

Lastly is the cultural component. If you review the foundations of radical feminism in its modern form, its principles about binary essentialism, gender, sexuality, and the moral judgements about these - they are all predominantly derived from white, western, eurocentric culture. A common trait of radical feminists is to erase cultures with different or more mutable ideas of gender, or to speak over those cultures and declare their different concepts of gender are simply a part of the universal and essential truth of radical feminism.

As a consequence of this, common assumptions about what is “inherent” to gender or sexuality or etc are taken as innate and universal, and become foundations for various forms of bigotry, racism, antisemitism and so on. But that’s usually not front loaded, the main thing is noticing how many assumptions are things that are based more on life experience typical for white, western, european people that might not be universal. That’s a good indicator.

So what you got here is an authoritarian philosophy whose principles ultimately overlap with many other authoritarian groups, but is distinguished by the foundation of a binary split between Male/Evil and Female/Good.

[sg-x00-airgetlam]

I will never understand why people feel the need to demonize sexuality so much. Do they not see that it ultimately boils down to appeasement of the oppressors in society by trying to adhere to their bullshit puritan values? Like, "oh if we're good, respectable little gays they'll see that we're people and maybe give us rights". That has both never worked, and is severely harmful to yourself and others.

Repressing yourself for the sake of fitting in with a shitty social paradigm is going to cause severe psychological damage, really similar to how being forced into the closet feels.

And constantly policing people within the LGBT community if they aren't your gold standard of sexually pure is a really shitty thing to do. It also disproportionately affects trans women, for really dumb reasons. We get overly scrutinized for sexual purity because the same people are actively sexualizing our existence. This plus typical terf rhetoric makes a lot of trans lesbians feel like sexual predators even for expressing very vanilla feelings about anyone. That's one of the reasons why there's so much overlap between terfs and sex negative feminists, because as long as being sexual is a bad thing and trans women are sexualized, then it can be weaponized for the sake of transphobia.

Acting like a 1700s colonial woman accusing your neighbor of being a harlot for church clout isn't the progressive stance you think it is.

As long as the default attitude towards sexuality is that it's inherently lesser, degenerate, or immoral, every single type of person and behavior is going to have to deal with either proving to the inquisition that they're pure enough or being relentlessly suppressed so that everyone else can save face.

I remember seeing a post awhile ago about how important prisoners' rights are, and how, when prisoners have no rights, it gives the people in power a lot of impetus to handle people they don't like by criminalizing things in a manner that disproportionately targets those groups. Whereas, if prisoners actually had rights, a lot of the incentive to criminalize these things would disappear. This issue with demonizing sexuality seems similar.

If sexuality was no longer demonized along puritan standards, none of these groups would be subject to as much suppression, because "being a degenerate" would cease to be an ideological bludgeon to swing at anyone you don't like.

Instead of fighting a losing battle with constantly shifting goalposts that we're pure enough, destroy the idea that "purity" is even a meaningful concept.

[oberlincollegelibraries]

Weekend Edition: Censorship

Banned Books Week kicks off tomorrow, so today we are bringing you a few suggested reads on the topic of censorship. 

Censored : A Literary History of Subversion and Control by Matthew Fellion and Katherine Inglis

When Henry Vizetelly was imprisoned in 1889 for publishing the novels of Émile Zola in English, the problem was not just Zola's French candour about sex - it was that Vizetelly's books were cheap, and ordinary people could read them. Censored exposes the role that power plays in censorship. In twenty-five chapters focusing on a wide range of texts, including the Bible, slave narratives, modernist classics, comic books, and Chicana/o literature, Matthew Fellion and Katherine Inglis chart the forces that have driven censorship in the United Kingdom and the United States for over six hundred years, from fears of civil unrest and corruptible youth to the oppression of various groups - religious and political dissidents, same-sex lovers, the working class, immigrants, women, racialized people, and those who have been incarcerated or enslaved. The authors also consider the weight of speech, and when restraints might be justified. Rich with illustrations that bring to life the personalities and the books that feature in its stories, Censored takes readers behind the scenes into the courtroom battles, legislative debates, public campaigns, and private exchanges that have shaped the course of literature. A vital reminder that the freedom of speech has always been fragile and never enjoyed equally by all, Censored offers lessons from the past to guard against threats to literature in a new political era.

The Hatred of Literature by William Marx ; translated by Nicholas Elliott

For the last 2,500 years literature has been attacked, booed, and condemned, often for the wrong reasons and occasionally for very good ones. The Hatred of Literature examines the evolving idea of literature as seen through the eyes of its adversaries: philosophers, theologians, scientists, pedagogues, and even leaders of modern liberal democracies. From Plato to C. P. Snow to Nicolas Sarkozy, literature's haters have questioned the value of literature -- its truthfulness, virtue, and usefulness -- and have attempted to demonstrate its harmfulness. Literature does not start with Homer or Gilgamesh , William Marx says, but with Plato driving the poets out of the city, like God casting Adam and Eve out of Paradise. That is its genesis. From Plato the poets learned for the first time that they served not truth but merely the Muses. It is no mere coincidence that the love of wisdom (philosophia) coincided with the hatred of poetry. Literature was born of scandal, and scandal has defined it ever since. In the long rhetorical war against literature, Marx identifies four indictments in the name of authority, truth, morality, and society. This typology allows him to move in an associative way through the centuries. In describing the misplaced ambitions, corruptible powers, and abysmal failures of literature, anti-literary discourses make explicit what a given society came to expect from literature. In this way, anti-literature paradoxically asserts the validity of what it wishes to deny. The only threat to literature's continued existence, Marx writes, is not hatred but indifference.

Lust on Trial : Censorship and the Rise of American Obscenity in the Age of Anthony Comstock by Amy Werbel

Anthony Comstock was America's first professional censor. From 1873 to 1915, as Secretary of the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice, Comstock led a crusade against lasciviousness, salaciousness, and obscenity that resulted in the confiscation and incineration of more than three million pictures, postcards, and books he judged to be obscene. But as Amy Werbel shows in this rich cultural and social history, Comstock's campaign to rid America of vice in fact led to greater acceptance of the materials he deemed objectionable, offering a revealing tale about the unintended consequences of censorship. In Lust on Trial, Werbel presents a colorful journey through Comstock's career that doubles as a new history of post-Civil War America's risqué visual and sexual culture. Born into a puritanical New England community, Anthony Comstock moved to New York in 1868 armed with his Christian faith and a burning desire to rid the city of vice. Werbel describes how Comstock's raids shaped New York City and American culture through his obsession with the prevention of lust by means of censorship, and how his restrictions provided an impetus for the increased circulation and explicitness of “obscene” materials. By opposing women who preached sexual liberation and empowerment, suppressing contraceptives, and restricting artistic expression, Comstock drew the ire of civil liberties advocates, inspiring more open attitudes toward sexual and creative freedom and more sophisticated legal defenses. Drawing on material culture high and low, including numerous examples of the ”obscenities” Comstock seized, Lust on Trial provides fresh insights into Comstock's actions and motivations, the sexual habits of Americans during his era, and the complicated relationship between law and cultural change.

Silenced in the Library : Banned Books in America by Zeke Jarvis

Censorship has been an ongoing phenomenon even in "the land of the free." This examination of banned books across U.S. history examines the motivations and effects of censorship, shows us how our view of right and wrong has evolved over the years, and helps readers to understand the tremendous importance of books and films in our society. Books ranging from classics such as A Farewell to Arms , Lord of the Rings , The Catcher in the Rye , and The Color Purple as well as best-selling books such as Are You There, God? It's Me Margaret , titles in the Harry Potter series, and various books by bestselling novelist Stephen King have all been on the banned books list. What was the content that got them banned, who wanted them banned, and did the ban have the desired effect of minimizing the number of people who read the title--or did it have the opposite effect, inadvertently creating an even larger readership for the book? Silenced in the Library: Banned Books in America provides a comprehensive examination of the challenges to major books as well as the final results of these selections being deemed "unfit for public consumption." Included in its discussion are explanations of the true nature of the objections along with the motives of the authors, publishers, and major proponents of the books. Content is organized based on why the books were banned, such as sexual content, drug use, or religious objections. This approach helps readers to see trends in how people have approached the challenge of evaluating what is "proper" and shows how our societal consensus of what is acceptable has evolved over the years. Readers will come away with a fuller appreciation of the immense power of words on a page--or an eReader device--to inflame and outrage, influence opinion, incite thought, and even change the course of history. Provides readers with a broad understanding of the different levels of censorship Puts challenges to books into historical context of societal standards and current events Takes both historical and literary perspectives, recognizing the lasting cultural influences of texts and their literary significance Presents biographical background of major authors who have been challenged Identifies the source and explains the result of challenges to the most important or influential banned books Compares challenges to controversial books against similar challenges to controversial films, television shows, and video games

[diallokenyatta]

Bro Diallo can you chart how Umar Johnson aka Jermaine Shoemake went from being a respected public speaker and advocate of Black issues and agendas, to the butt of jokes on the internet regarding Black consciousness? There are dozens of youtube channels dedicated to either clowning him or exposing him. On twitter he's little more than a meme. Some say he's on drugs, others say he's a crazed con-man. What happened?

I don’t know anything about him doing drugs.  I would call him a ConMan because he’s actively engaged in the deception of the public to get them to contribute money to him under false pretenses, and I believe he’s still actively engaged in the Con by giving false updates about the FDMG Academy. But my issue with Dr. Umar isn’t really centered around the ongoing School Con he’s pulling, my beef with him is ideological, and I think his flawed ideology & Demagogary are at the root of all of his other issues; so that’s what I’ll speak on.

Dr. Umar was ultimately self-defeating. He built up a moralist, puritanical persona and failed to embody the very principles of manhood, family, and the discipline he advocated for and falsely told the Black community were the paths to empowerment and freedom. Dr. Umar only rose to prominence by engaging in what I have come to call Black Puritanism. Black people are primed by the Dominate System to have certain core beliefs about sex, gender roles, family, work, material value, education, and morality. Many Militant Black Leaders who claim to not only oppose White Western Culture but to be African Centered or Pan-African fully embrace the core practices and beliefs of White Western Culture, they simply infuse it with Black Militant Rhetoric and African esthetics, but at the core, it’s Western, Judeo-Christian ideology; that’s Black Puritanism. 

Umar exploited the fears and indoctrination of the Black masses, he didn’t educate our people, he encouraged our people to be more regressive, not Revolutionary. If you remove all of the Black Militant Rhetoric and the African Aesthetics from his teachings you will have an ideology that is identical to Racist organizations like the Republican Party, Focus on the Family, the Proud Boys, & most other Neo-Fascist & Far-Right organizations.  Also, just like the Far-Right Demagogues he mimics; he does the opposite of what he professes and teaches. From lying about celibacy to failing to marry the women he impregnates, to pursuing sex with the very type of women he rebukes (strippers, women with perms, etc.). Dr. Umar shuns Christianity and other “Slave Religions,” but his rebuke of homosexuality is drawn directly from those Slave Religions. Dr. Umar is a Ph.D., but fails to give an academic, evidence-based source for his claims about the harm homosexuality is doing to the Black community or Black manhood.  I personally have been asking him, his supporters, and the larger Black Straight Pride Movement for a secular, rational, evidence-based support for their claims and condemnations for years. They call me a homosexual for simply making the inquiry. Dr. Umar’s methods and positions are an easy, quick, and profitable way to prominence and power within the Black community, but it’s a circular path, not a progressive one, it causes the Leaders who do this to take us in a circle where we always end up where we started. Many of his defenders like to point out the areas where Umar has been correct like in the over-drugging of Black youth for “behavioral issues,” and the criminalization of Black youth; and he should be commended for that, but when you use the accolades and attention you gain for accurate teachings to manipulate and fleece the public while trying to erect a cult following you deserve to be called out. Again, it’s Umar’s own misdeeds and lunacy that detracts from the good works he’s done, not his opponents and critics. As Dr. Umar or any Black Demagogue remains prominent and their views and teachings become better known outside their core followers they always evolve into caricatures of Black Militancy because their teachings can’t stand up to critical analysis or any form of intelligent scrutiny. Since hey can’t fight back academically or intellectually they start ranting and raving, making wild accusations about their challengers, threatening detractors, and a develop a Martyr Complex; in nutshell: They Go Crazy. Dr. Umar isn’t the first to go through this spiral, nor will he be the last. At this stage some Black Demagogues fade into obscurity, others manage to hold on to some level of prominence but their influence is greatly reduced, some Demagogues like Minister Farakahn constantly morph their positions and adopt new (still irrational, but new) positions to remain relevant. But the more rigid the Demagogue is the more insane they appear and the smaller their circle of influence becomes. 

If you want to help Dr. Umar here are some suggestions, it won’t be a complete list but it’ll go a long way towards Dr. Umar actually making a Positive Contributions to the Just Aspirations of African People, and truly advancing the Pan-African Struggle:  1. Don’t center yourself when it comes to educating, uplifting, or leading the community; make the ideas and agendas the core.  Men are flawed and we’ll all eventually fall, but the ideology and mission should be beyond any individual. Pan-Africanism doesn't need a “Prince,” it needs rational, committed organizers. 2. Don’t tout your personal morality as a reason anyone should follow you; especially if you don’t actually follow that personal morality! Your analysis, the viability of your agendas, your commitment to the protracted struggle should be what you offer and be used to measure your worthiness, not who you have (consensual) sex with or how you have sex, or any of the other shit Umar lied about.  If your personal “outlets” don’t detract from the movement, then keep it to yourself. No one would have given a damn about Umar’s relationship with a Stripper if he hadn’t sold himself as the embodiment of sexual morality and restraint; he made it an issue, not his detractors.  3. If you can’t defend a position, rework or abandon it. Be teachable.  4. Everyone who criticizes you isn’t your enemy. Never threaten anyone online, never threaten or commit violence against another Black person based on verbal or ideological disagreements. 5. Stop competing with other public figures, and only debate the merits and efficacy if their ideas, conclusions, and agendas.  6. Stop attacking the mothers of your children on social media! Stop attacking Black women. Stop...just stop.  7. Stop projecting your insecurities with your own masculinity onto Black women and LGBTQAI+ community. 8. Let go of the Alpha Male persona, there’s no value to be found within it.  9. Stop giving yourself titles of esteem, if the community wants to bestow titles upon you accept them with humility & live up to them. 10. Open the school, redirect the funds you raised to another project of equal value to the community, or return the funds to your supports. Set a hard deadline for doing one of the three listed here.  Finally; I can’t be too hard on Dr. Umar, cuz I held many of the views and engaged in some of the behaviors that I criticize him for (I never dupped the Hood outta $500Gs, nothing that horrible).  But I had people who were patient with me and willing to educate me, if not I’d probably be spewing the same BS as him well into my 30s and beyond. So, I always try to root some real insights and guidance in my criticisms and mockery of Dr. Umar in the hope that he can learn and grow. www.diallokenyattta.com www.patreon.com/diallokenyatta #BroDiallo