#maybe it's something about wanting to dominate the patriarchy

[toshidou]

for the love of everything unholy...

dominating graves after you pull him out of the burning tank and punishing him for being so recklessly stupid by betraying 141..

dragging him back to base and tying him up, then edging him endlessly until hes sobbing and apologizing..

pegging and overstimulating him until all he can do his choke on his moans and whimpers, barely able to speak as he tells you how sorry he is...

making him pass out from pure pleasure and bathing him afterward because even after that he's still your sweet misunderstood boy <3

THATS ALL I CANT THINK ABOUT RN AUAUUSUSH. Your sub ghost fic was like.. yes... and I'm definitely gonna send you more asks in the future if you don't mind- 😩✨

You know what, I'm not even a Graves girl but honestly??? Pegging my frustrations out on that man sounds like a whale of a time. Honestly I think if you make any male character a sub bottom I'll find them attractive, I have a problem LMFAOOO

I'd definitely make him call me Sir though, that man needs an authority figure in his life that ISN'T a piece of shit *cough Shepherd cough*, but please, if you ever write anything about subby Graves.... gimme a tag, you might just turn me from a hater to a lover AJDJWKD

And of course!!! Send me asks about whatever, whenever you like, I'm always down to chat 🥺

[notyourhetloki]

From prompt list “I’m going to ruin you” after Ken has learned about bodily anatomy after his venture into the real world and he says this to fem reader (or gn if you prefer!), and decides it’s finally time to get your attention off that other Ken once and for all (which, of course, the reader has never cared about that “other Ken” anyway)

feel good (Ken x Reader)

Reader: gender neutral

/NSFW Ken x Doll!Reader/

A/N: Heey! Thanks for requesting! THIS WAS SO MUCH FUN like... you're a genius. Hope you like it! Prompt list mentioned: here's the link

Warnings: very smutty, dolls have genitals in this one, reader is implied to have a vagina but I don't describe it much (it's still gn!), possessive Ken, maybe a bit ooc, reader's virginity is mentioned.

Word Count: 1.1k

—

In his venture into the Real World, Ken learned very interesting things like the patriarchy, horses, and most importantly... sex.

See, the dolls in Barbieland knew they had genitals but it was never something they actually used often (if ever). They knew the basics of human anatomy but... nothing as throughout as what Ken had discovered.

Magazines, books, even videos of sex were readily available, all accessible to a very naive Ken who let everything get to his head.

Arriving home to Barbieland, Ken began getting these thoughts... if sex was so good after all, why not try it with you, the person he loved the most? The thoughts were pure enough at the beginning, but it all went to shit when he saw you...

Sitting next to Simu!Ken, you were laughing and chatting along. You both seemed to be having fun and Ken hated that, a gut-wrenching sensation of pure jealousy taking over his entire body.

Without thinking, Ken immediately walked over to you, grabbing you by the wrist and waving a sarcastic goodbye to the other Ken. You were surprised, but happy nonetheless. "Ken! You're back! I'm so happy you returned, love... But where are you taking me?"

He didn't answer, only marching towards your house until you were in your living room. Ken released the grip on your wrist and turned to face you.

He looked... different. He had a stern but mischievous look on his face, his pupils blown out making his baby blue eyes look darker, hair messy... He looked feral. "Ken..."

"I'm going to ruin you..." He whispered, taken by a mixture of jealousy and arousal. You looked so good... and you were his.

You didn't know what to make of his statement, feeling heat run through your body as he looked at you like a meal... he had never looked at you like that before.

"Sit down." Ken calmly said, and you promptly obliged. Sat on the sofa, he held your chin up so you looked at him as he said: "I'm going to make you feel so good... I promise."

Then, he kneeled. Moving his hands to your waistband, he looked up asking for permission and you agreed (even if a little confused).

Ken took your pants off, removing your underwear with it. You gasped a bit, not expecting any of it. His hands grazed on your thighs, opening them up so he could get a good look at you.

"Don't be shy, (Y/N)... you're so beautiful." Ken said before diving in between your legs, kissing your inner thighs, making you shiver. "K-Ken... what are-" Suddenly, you were cut out by a wave of pleasure that dominated your chore. He was kissing you... down there. And you didn't know why it felt this good.

Ken continued kissing, licking, and sucking... It was obviously his first time but he was doing his best, and he knew exactly where your most sensitive spot was... not neglecting it for a moment.

Sounds were coming out of your mouth and you honestly couldn't care about neighbors, moaning loudly when Ken hit that sweet spot... you felt out of orbit, taken completely by pleasure.

Tightness began building in your belly, like a bomb ready to explode, you were scared but nothing could take you out of this moment. "Ken, p-please... don't stop..."

And he didn't, working fiercely to make you orgasm... he wanted to taste you in his mouth, to be the first one to make you cum.

As you felt his lips and tongue moving, the tightness suddenly released. Waves of pleasure washed over you while you moaned his name. You felt dumb with the feeling, overwhelmed by so many sensations all at once.

Ken got up with a smile, feeling real proud of himself "See? I told you I would make you feel good! Now... it's my turn."

He took his pants off in one single swift motion, revealing his hard cock to you. Damn, he was hot... and you wanted to pleasure him too. "Ken... I-I want to learn how to make you feel good as well..."

His eyes grew wide, taken aback by your sudden confession (yes he was still insecure about you, even though you had just let him eat you out lol). "Oh, doll..." Ken softly said before kissing you, tender but slightly possessive... he was desperate at that point.

After the kiss, he carefully positioned you to kneel on the couch with your back facing him, legs spread slightly apart enough so he could slot himself in between. Ken massaged your back while teasing your entrance with the tip of his cock.

After you gave him consent, he slowly got inside you, careful to not hurt. It was quite off rhythm at first, Ken groaned while feeling so overwhelmed with you around him. But as soon as you both got comfortable... things escalated.

Ken fucked you quickly like an animal, completely desperate and needy. He was inside you, the first to ever be inside you! He felt possessive, moaning and groaning as he grabbed on your thighs and waist, pulling lightly on your hair as he cried into your ear: "You're mine, you're mine..."

"Ah, Ken! Ah..." You whined as his pace quickened even more, his dick inside you so deep hitting sweet spots you didn't even know you had, stretching you oh so deliciously.

"Yes! Please! Hmm... so good!" You hummed in approval, and the more praise you gave, the messier it got. Ken seemed to get off on your words, rolling his hips into you harder the more you spoke and driving you crazy. Eventually, you started moving your own hips to meet his thrusts, and that sight... he began getting erratic just from looking at you.

Not long after, Ken cummed inside you. Head tilted back, moaning your name and holding your waist for dear life. He never imagined it could be this good.

Plastic hearts racing, you both hugged each other as you laid on the sofa. Ken had his head on your chest, resting as he regained composure. "See? You're mine now..." He said between breaths.

"But, Ken... I've always been yours." You reassured him, running your fingers through his blonde hair. "You're the only one for me."

He turned his face upwards to look at you with teary eyes, admiring your face before reaching and kissing you desperately. Tears ran down his face as he kissed you, and you wiped them clean with your hands.

After Ken calmed down, you two sat side by side on the couch while you wondered: "What was that, by the way? The... the things you did, the way it made me feel..."

"Oh... yeah, there are a lot of things I'd like to show you! Things I learned in the Real World... that was one of them." Ken grinned while holding your hand, soothing you before continuing: "I've never done anything like it before, either... but I wanted to try it with you."

You couldn't help but smile, squeezing his hands while being so happy he trusted you like that. "Well, I'm glad that I'm yours, then..."

—

[hemipenal-system]

If I consent to a man breaking my jaw and ripping out my nails, the man who agrees to do it is a bad person. An extreme example but it should drive the point home, no?

Doesn't matter if I consent to being choked. Whoever WANTS to choke someone out to get off is a bad person.

Whoever wants to pretend to be raping or abusing someone to get off is a bad person.

"an extreme example but it should drive the point home, no"

no?? if you know the risks and accept them and give unhindered, clear and informed consent, then no, there's actually nothing wrong with someone doing that stuff to you. because, and viewers at home can say it with me, THAT IS HOW CONSENT WORKS

but y'know, what we're *actually* gonna look at here is the assumption that the person doing that to you is a man. maybe y'all would stop seeing kink as an inherent expression of patriarchy if you internalized the fact that not every man is dominant and not every woman is submissive. also, you know, that there are gay people.

but no, because that would require you to actually deconstruct the ideas you have in your head about how every man has to be an aggressor and how testosterone makes people violent and how every man secretly wants to do this kind of thing to every vulnerable, weak woman, the implication being of course that any woman who engages in this kind of thing by choice has something wrong with her

which is fully just misogyny but thats a tangent from the actual point here

"Doesn't matter if I consent to being choked. Whoever WANTS to choke someone out to get off is a bad person."

furthermore, i think you should also deconstruct this idea that kink spaces are all dominants who want to hurt their submissives, when in reality it's a dominant doing those things because they know their sub likes it just as much if not more of the time.

let's look at that "doesn't matter if i consent to being choked" line. um. yes it does?? knowing your risks and giving informed consent is literally the entire thing here. you do know that there are safe* ways to choke someone that are legitimately taught to people in an attempt to minimize permanent harm from that sort of thing, right? when you see things like "don't use thin metal handcuffs on your partner" and "keep safety shears within arm's reach when doing ropeplay" and "drink gatorade and go pee after sex" you know those are all things people do to reduce risk, right?

(* no form of breathplay is 100% safe! know the risks and do research on how to minimize them before you play!!!)

"Whoever wants to pretend to be raping or abusing someone to get off is a bad person."

hey look at that key word i italicized in that quote for your ease of reading! it's all pretend! because, once again, viewers at home say it with me, THAT IS HOW CONSENT WORKS

there's no actual rape or abuse happening if you have proper consent and safe word setups in place. the key to this whole thing, which is why any of this stuff is actually possible to do ethically, is the fact that, at any time for any reason at all, either the dominant or the submissive can stop the scene. literally all kink is, is an ongoing, revokable agreement between at least two people to do things that might not be ethical irl.

(before y'all toss another strawman at this, yes there are people who break consent rules, and yes they get tossed out of kink spaces for it)

kink is fucking theater. when hamlet stabs polonius, you don't accuse hamlet's actor of being a murderer. this is morally the exact same thing as going to the theater and watching people talk in iambic pentameter and stab each other.

there's also kinks that have basically negligible risk of temporary or permanent harm, just so you know, but of course you're not going to mention those ones. you know, because you're a weirdo who just wants to police what people do in the bedroom

[olderthannetfic]

I’l throw my two cents into the f/f vs m/m wank fire.

I wonder if part of more m/m being written in general isn’t that certain character dynamics are more likely to remind people of mysogynistic tropes if it involves women.

I’m not sure if these are the best examples— but if the woman is the one getting dominated and the one that gets "babyfever" that seems like it invites harrasment and accusations about misoginy because authors of ye olde times reduced women to only that, and you are decidedly not safe even when all the characters are women because "how dare you write a woman uphold patriarchial standards" or something. Talking about wanting to get a cis man pregnant comes off less creepy than saying the same thing about any woman, doesn’t it?

Maybe these tropes are too niche to actually have any considerable bearing on the shipping scene at large, but it does seem to me like men just become the safer bet to explore sex with and don’t carry the fear to need to write a PhD dissertations about misoginy and sexism as a preface before writing dynamics or kinks that you like, or an explanation to why you are allowed to like that kink or dynamic.

It feels like this might extend to other marginalized or uncommon identities where certain things come with unfortunate sociohistorical (is that a word?) implications, and thus becomes much more restricted in what becomes socially acceptable to depict.

And people don’t want to risk or worry about depicting something "wrong" when they are in a space to relax, and in many cases to avoid thinking too hard about things.

More sensitive topics seem to open up more bad faith readings, which is counter productive for more text to be created about it.

Which now typing out a long explanation for seems stupid- I guess it’s a stupidly obvious conclusion to draw now that if there is a selective pressure of any kind on what gets submitted in a specific category, there will be overall less of it.

If people did feel less concious over what the worst possible reading could be of their f/f and m/f fic there’d certainly be more of it, but I don’t know if people complaining about the lack of f/f want to sacrifice the proportions of "quality" over higher statistics.

I think this might have been touched upon in some ways by other anons under "then we should encourage more het men to write f/f", just not with the exact framework I’m coming from I think.

I don’t have a good way to end this and I’m not sure if it’s worth anything (as far as these types of discourse go anyways), but this is way longer than originally intended already

--

This is a pretty standard point in "Why do women like m/m?" discussions going back decades, yeah. I'm sure this is a reason for many women just as some guys write female characters to explore things they find uncomfortable to explore via male ones.

The thing about the cyclical wank is that it boils down to m/m fans listing a bunch of reasons that make a lot of sense... at extreme length.

And then a bunch of f/f fans feeling rather attacked because nobody really wants to read a thousand pages about why their thing is unpopular.

And then someone goes "Okay, but it's weird/bad that women like slash!" and we're back to the tl;dr explanations.

[analy-sing-stuff]

HEY,so...

Talking about Hachi's relationship towards my favourite character on the whole NANA anime series, Shin;

Hachi and Shin's relationship is so special in a way maybe only a woman could portray, a relationship between a mother and a son.

Its important to let it clear that not only Shin is in dependence and devotion of this relationship but hachi, specially and mostly because of her feelings towards men.

To get it better, we do have to quickly dive into her character,

But specifically into the intimacy her character shares with men.

The intimacy hachi shares with shoji (kinda disgusting saying his name, i know babes) is pretty much confused. She needs his affection, she needs someone to be strong for her and to take care of her. It's pretty much all that society says and specially the patriarchy stabilishes. This is shown since the beginning when they meet at the art school; Hachi needs a perfect life, a perfect job, a perfect house, perfect friends and most important of all, Hachi NEEDS a perfect boyfriend. An enchanted prince, her allmighty savior.

This is very much explicit when nana (her ideal pair) (that she's compulsivelly trying to ignore its her ideal pair) (she's the biggest comp het in the country) IS getting depicted as said "prince charming" on a oficial doodle

Its also very clear when she HERSELF depicts her as this traditional girlish house wife.

So we can conclude that

1. She doesnt wanna be alone in the future and its pretty explicit that her traditional beliefs coming from a small town taught her that the only way for her to have the perfect life and have someone by her side is being loved and cherished by a man

2. She HAS to offer something for a guy to like her, otherwise she sees no point on him loving her. This certainly means she has no confidence in herself as a woman, or at least, no good self steam.

3. She's comp het and wants a woman but doesnt know how to ask.

So, uh, that pretty much explains everything in the show, so its clear she NEEDS a man to fullfill her wishes,

This is very clearly presented in (ew) Shoji's relationship with her and subtle as an elephant in her relationship with (AAEHAGWW) Takumi

The intimacy they share is very desperate and the secomd she feels like maybe her friends left her behind, she goes to him, showing again how she needs this validation, how much she depends on this small amount of love that is offered to her when suddenly is convenient.

Talking about Nobu, the only man that let space for her to be herself, it's pretty explicit how much he loves her to the point she's able to take the lead of their relationship

Most hugs between both of them (if not for ALL the hugs they share) are from the side, with Hachi willingly hugging his arm, but having the total freedom of letting go if she wants. For the first time, she gets in a relationship with a man that does not have the urge to be dominant and treat her like an object, an accessory or an animal; putting aside all the pain she has to carry of the role model of a perfect idealized woman.

It's, however, never enough for her. In many words i could describe why all these relationships are not changing anything for Hachi as a person, even if they bring happiness with them. It's pretty much easier to say, Hachi is not being true to herself, but that's not tottaly it, because to herself, she is nothing but a prize for men, an object, and even so learning that she actually is her own person and that she is much more than someone who needs desperately to be loved, it's clear that when the love she needs doesnt meet her she freaks out, the girl breaks BREAKS down.

And that's how important shin is to her.

When they meet and Hachi suddenly discovers he's just a 15 year old trying to fit in something, it gets pretty obvious her urge to protect and take care of him much like the role she signs up for her whole life, a mother.

For as long as their relationship grows, Shin has shown Hachi kindness in a way she has never experienced from a man before, in a way that Shin never experienced from a woman. Fraternal love. A type of love so strong that bonds two people with no second intention.

Shin states he's been used and desired by women his whole life to survive, Hachi states that she cannot imagine a man loving her for who she is if not for one idea of her.

The night she comes back after sleepin with Takumi she states that she can't see herself as loved.

And in the same night Shin shows intimacy for her in a way no man in those pictures did before.

HE is desperate to see HER.

Their bond is so special that after having to look for someone to meet her needs, right after HE went to look for HER because HE needs HER.

Many other scenes could prove how much they both love eachother but i like to think it's such a strong bond that not even I could yap about them enough.

Thats it 😭😭😭😭 i hope i didnt sound crazy or sum

[drdemonprince]

Something I think you're missing in how you talk about trans men: how recently you transitioned.

I came out circa 2007, and there was almost no information about us, no community where I lived (the local support group was all older trans women), no media outside of "Boys Don't Cry" and the way-better-but-still-basic "Parrotfish," no anything at all except TERF lesbian communities that coveted and hated us in equal measure, and general GSAs that were sweet, but dominated by cis people. I learned that the worst thing in the world I could be was a trans man - to be a trans man was to be a regressive agent of the patriarchy, and if I couldn't force myself to be nonbinary or a cis woman, I was evil.

In the early 2010s I attended a conference where a trans woman, a national celebrity I looked up to, made a joke about how useless trans men are during her keynote speech. I walked out of that room crying because as far as I knew, she was right - I was almost an elder by the standards of an atomized community where we were expected to die young, and even I couldn't name a single trans man in history who'd mattered.

We take it for granted now that trans men like Lou Sullivan made a difference, but to bring attention to him, folks like me had to swim upstream against a wave of accusations of misogyny from TERFs, and sometimes even from trans women. The acceptance you rejoice in at bathhouses? That was hard won through outreach by trans men. I even remember a specific trans male-run ambassador program in San Francisco circa 2013 dedicated to integrating trans men into the queer male community.

The world that's welcomed you was built by trans men who, like me, felt agonizingly alone and unwanted in both cis and trans communities. You paint a picture of lazy hangers-on who don't understand how good they have it, and maybe that's true for the folks you're looking at, but they don't reflect the hard work trans men have been putting in at every level of organizing for much longer than our efforts have been recognized. I've been involved in the fight for our liberation since I was a teenager, working on school and state-level policy change, medical access, the preservation of history, mentorship, dodging evictions, and all the little jobs my tired, autistic ass can take on, and I've never been rewarded for it outside the thanks of the people I've helped. All I ever wanted was to make things better for the generations that came after me.

I'd just like to have that reality acknowledged - that those of us who came before you built what you're now able to enjoy, and we can use that history to empower and encourage younger generations to continue doing the work instead of implying that no one's been doing it at all.

Thank you for this message. I would like to read a lot more about your perspective on this history. Please let me know your @ -- in private if you prefer. There are some elements of how this is framed here that do make me go, hm (the view was the worst thing you could be was a trans man?) but I am also appreciative of this this glimpse at what I don't know I don't know, and am interested to learn more about it.

But I also want to push back against the idea that I have no knowledge of how things were during the times you're talking about -- I was a queer, gender-questioning adult at that time too, and I was active in many trans spaces.

My medical transition is very recent in the grand scheme of things but I've been rolling deep with trans guys and going to trans masc events since 2003-2004 (in Cleveland and Columbus). I remember how the not-full-blown TERFY yet still very toxic radfems spoke about men, sexually preyed upon trans guys in some cases, and sometimes said things critical of transition. I knew several trans guys who had quite a guilt complex about becoming a "man" because they had internalized that men were inherently predatory and evil. Personally, I'd always thought that line of thinking was absurd and a very poor excuse for feminism, so it didn't get under my skin in the same way. Instead of making me not want to be a man, it made me not want to be a feminist. Which is pretty typical sexist bro shit to do really. Again, no big evidence of transmisandry here. certainly experiences that were emotionally very fraught and challenging for people, but not misandry or transmisandry.

These queer and feminist groups that I moved within were VASTLY more exclusionary to the trans femmes in the city, who were not even permitted to attend events for sexual assault survivors in the Columbus scene. I DID see trans women on the social periphery of these groups be discouraged from transitioning, and I did hear just about every vile transmisogynistic slur and exclusionary idea you can think of be passed around by many without challenge.

The transmisogyny stood out to me even back then as particularly egregious and rampant -- it disgusted me and caused me to distance myself from those groups of people in 2007-8. It was the outspoken hatred of anyone with an "amab" body and frothing transmisogyny that made me not want to be associated with that crowd or to contemplate transition, honestly -- not any kind of widespread anti-transmasc sentiment. These groups held top surgery fundraisers and hormone start date celebrates for trans guys and expressed desire for trans men openly and included them warmly in just about everything while treating trans women like predators and telling them they should just be feminine men (far, far away from them).

So my experience just does not track with what you are saying. I imagine we have two very different vantage points on similar periods of time, and I think there certainly is a lot more about trans masc history I could stand to learn and so many trans masc elders' whose names I should be putting more respect on. And I'd be very open to hearing more about that from you. But I do have to push back against the characterization of the era as someone who very much was there.

[stillarandom-radfem]

There's something that I want to say, and I'm trying to work out the right way to phrase it right now.

Libfems. They are so... idk. Is wishy-washy the right term to use? They're sort of silly. They are so adamant about the notion of "smashing the patriarchy" but it's all just lip service, and it's not even necessarily because all of them are intrinsically bad or anti-woman. For some of them, idk, a few, their hearts may actually be in the right place, but the actions (or rather, lack thereof) that they take to get there are misguided and will never grant them their desired result. And I want to elaborate on why I think that is. It's because you can not fight against a social institution (in this case, patriarchy) without first having a clear understanding of what it is, why it exists, how it operates, and what it's goals are. In other words, you have to know your enemy in order to fight it effectively.

Libfems don't. Their version of feminism lacks a solid sense of analysis. They don't know who the patriarchy consists of (jealous, controlling, entitlement-minded men acting collectively against women in their own self-interest). They don't understand why it exists (the male phenomenon of womb envy exists at the heart of patriarchy; men wish to control the biological function of life-giving which only women possess, and to do that, they must first control and subordinate women). They don't grasp how patriarchy operates (by controlling the legal, financial, and social norms and institutions that govern every patriarchal society on the planet, and forcing them to operate in men's favor rather than women's, and also by using violence against women in order to keep us in line). And they don't know what patriarchy's goals are (complete and utter control, subordination, and enslavement of women to men). They don't know that men are the enemy, that hurting and controlling us is their goal, not some unfortunate accident. They don't realize that the system is working as it's intended to (by men), that it isn't a fluke or a flaw. They mistakenly assume that men are like us, that they are truly decent people underneath it all, and not that they are being cruel on purpose. They see men show compassion and kindness and empathy for other men, and falsely believe that they would do so for women, too, if we could just show them the way. But, they couldn't be more wrong, and the fact that men do show such kindness and caring for other men tells us that they know what that looks like, that their horrible treatment of women is a choice on their part, and a very deliberate one at that.

Sucking up to men, doing their bidding, and pleading for kindness from them will never eliminate patriarchy; only full liberation from them can accomplish that. But libfems, still blithely unaware that men are the enemy at all, dont grasp this. So, they keep doing the opposite, thinking that, if they can prove themselves to be "cool" girls who will submit to men's desires and even convince themselves that they are their own, then men might maybe listen to them about rape culture or abortion rights or something. Baby steps, they tell themselves. Slow progress is still progress. They don't realize that control over women's reproductive capacities is at the heart of patriarchal societies the world over, or the role violence against women and girls has in maintaining men's hierarchal dominance over women, and thus, said reproductive capacities. This is why liberal feminism is so ineffective, so man-centric, so wishy-washy. This is why it will always play directly into the patriarchy's hands. It's why all of the major changes made to benefit women over the past century or so have been made by radical feminists, not liberal feminists. It isn't even that libfems are entirely evil or misogynistic (although, make no mistake, their behavior is definitely frustrating to see). It's because, in order to fight your enemy, you must first know your enemy. In order to destroy the patriarchy, you must first have some sort of feminist analysis and framework to work within.

[ipusingularitae]

I'm feeling that some ppl interpretate the [man hurt → fascist] like we can't hold men and patriarchy accountable for the process. like "oh if you didn't hurt him he wouldn't have descended into fascism in the first place". and i truly need these ppl to give a closer look into the processes and institutions.

bc it's not coincidental that these men go to fascism and conservative spaces and ideologies, it's not something that happens to happen. and i feel like a lot of ppl are blaming marginalized and oppressed groups for feeling enraged and not wanting to be around others that reproduce oppression in the first place, like everything wasn't a consequence of a system that constantly sustains individuality and those behaviors towards them (marginalized groups)

like, it's kinda obvious when you see the bigger picture. but on a smaller level, some responses to, for example, barbie and ken relationship in the recent movie, or snow and lucy gray. yeah it's funny "the boy was heartbroken and became a fascist" at first bc it's so absurd, but then when a bunch of ppl start to take that seriously i get... concerned.

the barbie movie had a clear premise, yes, and the mirroring of the real world to barbieland is there. no, kens shouldn't be invisible and maybe we shouldn't focus on a capitalist and liberal society in the first place, but ken relying on patriarchy isn't supposed to be taken on a simplistic way. if we take the mirroring aspect, the way ken take patriarchy is WAY different than the way women take counterculture movements, especially considering that feminism is about equality and not matriarchy. SO it's not to be taken on a superficial level, there's a reason why men go to patriarchy in the first place bc men does not grow in a women dominant world. the way women use feminism is not the same way ken used patriarchy. feminism should be a movement that also targets capitalism, and so yes (surprise) the approach on the movie was white and neoliberal.

although you can to use your access in information (internet) to go deeper into other ways to approach the topic, the hunger games one makes me much more concerned. because a lot was very clear. other things i think should've been more clear, like the way coriolanus despised lucy and sejanus very much in the book (we know why they didn't make that more obvious tho). but essentially i think there's more discussion to have in more complex ways in this story. bc it shows how one thing is connected to the other, how the stuff do not go alone.

the way he acted towards lucy and his subsequent response to her not complying to what he wanted makes it clear how he didn't descended into conservative ideology from nowhere. since the beginning he felt like the world owned him something, like he deserved more (and I'm not talking ab just his financial situation, although that is linked too). bc his father was a great army man, and they were from a dominant space before the districts dared to rebel, and so he had this thing being reaffirmed all the time - how he didn't had what he was supposed to have, this greatness. and ppl bully him for it, they make fun of him and that makes him feel more wronged. so when lucy gray does not accept what he wanted, when she realizes what their life would be and runs away, he goes to the thing that was there all along. it wasn't a new outside thing, it was present in his life since the beginning, it was there before him, and ppl would say that it's simply human nature so... why wouldn't he go along with it?

i think the barbie movie did a good job when they showed that barbie putting ken aside wasn't right and it came connected with her alienating herself from her existence. but the movie didn't show how everything is connected to the systems and the economic, social and cultural structures, the movie does not try to show how maintaining the system will continue to do harm, or how the hierarchy system it's the problem in itself. it goes so far into saying that "someday maybe the kens will have as much influence as women have in the real world" but does not provide the first step to dismantling the culture that has been fucking everything up since 16th century (at minimum) - again, very white and neoliberal.

but THG saga shows us how everything is linked. and so seeing ppl putting it on a simplistic way makes me very concerned and confused bc... IT'S THERE. and it's not subtext, it's not implied, IT'S THERE. OPEN AND EXPLICT AND WELL EXPLAINED IN 4 BOOKS/MOVIES.

anyway that was a big rant, thanks for coming to my tedtalk

[horizon-verizon]

You should ABSOLUTELY read Ursula K. Le Guin’s essay on anti-fantasy, “Why are Americans afraid of dragons ?”. It is such a brilliant and insightful piece.

https://w3.ric.edu/faculty/rpotter/temp/waaaod.pdf

“They are afraid of dragons because they are afraid of freedom.”

I remember reading this some time ago, maybe in a college class? Reread it, and yeah in the U.S., with capitalism but not only here, people (mostly & often men) derive their sense of being from their ability to make a profit from something and deny the fantastical, and it doesn't have to even be an activity to be worth something that will give you identity. Houses, stocks, other properties, anything you can objectify and sell, or make an object and sell. Let me say patriarchal capitalism, in fact.

And yeah, it has its roots in Puritanism, which while that religious group developed as an offshoot response to the Catholic Church's spiritual hegemony--and got their idea of "pleasure=sin" because it does not have a purpose (any sex that wasn't performed for reproduction was "sodomy")--did not even try to reincorporate pre-Catholic English rituals or fairytale creatures for fear of oneself showing that you were not part of the pre-birth assignments of salvation or damnation. The fear of showing that you were damned and for the Devil instead of losing oneself to being aware of their connection to God even in the moments of prayer themselves. Thus the perpetual searching for signs of God's favor or anger.

The Following is a Long Diatribe about American Masculinity (But Honestly, A Lot will cover Men of Various Patriarchies) So if You don't Care or Want to See This, OK

(And Before it's "Not All Men!", this is about the Nature of the Practicing Man and his Masculinity; if none of this has ever determined a man's psyche and sense of self, it should be no bother)

Even though this essay was written in 1974, much of it rings true, especially after thinking/watching others talk about that recent Twitter post about men resenting their girlfriends for not breaking up with them after they purposely try to get them to break up with them with emotionally abusive behavior AND discussing mental load in domestic labor. Basically, men do that to their partners because they:

do not want to be accountable for "ruining" a relationship and being the "bad" guy (feels very fundamentalist Christian and no-fault divorcy...Joe Jonas?)

and if they could "allow" a woman to lead forward & dictate their domestic actions they themselves would not have to engage in that labor while profiting off of that labor -> low effort, high reward

To be a man is to make money, or to control money, yes?

All the while, they will never be okay with actually being alone with their own thoughts because they cannot bash their partners or anyone who offers them affection and care to assuage the pain they are not able to nor willing to try to express to those around them...even other men for fear of being humiliated for showing "useless" and "girly" emotions because they cannot "control" and "use" said emotions or compulsions to propel them into an ideal state of "focus" (NoNut November) and stability that never lasts long and is thus frustrating. There is a compulsion to get into a vague mind-state of "stability", almost as if putting a halt to the busy-busy of necessary life, but simultaneously holding life by the reins and directing it to their own desires...which they ignore once they seem too "much", or complicated.

Instead of developing better critical thinking skills or how to empathize with others and communicate apart from how to dictate and dominate for the sake of "taking" rewards for little-as-possible labor, they may fantasize about mimicking some male celeb or embodying the image of this hypermasculine "winner" at capitalism, signaled through wealth. When together, they either ignore or scoff at thoughts that were not told to them (from childhood) on "how to be a man", which they take as the official moral and phenomenological guidebook on how to perform or think of certain tasks and how to perceive certain things. And in those same get-togethers, many just go along with what their male peers say about the world around them and parrot it more often than the reverse so they can reaffirm those things and that they are performing stoic masculinity well.

Add in family trauma from fathers themselves experiencing this and alienating themselves from families (abuse and neglect as in domestic violence or never coming around to see them and pick them up for visitation) and you have a very resentful man-child who wants to be an ideal and to finally justify his own reckless pursuit of being an ideal/ideal man. The recipe for that, to them, is also, to have a penis, and then bring others "in" sexually.

This goes into another reason why men get very resentful of their partners and women in general: in lieu of what they think is "doing a lot" of mental and physical labor, they believe all a woman needs to do to be financially or emotionally set is to get someone, i.e. a man, to take care of them financially. So to see women they call "golddiggers" receive gifts and money and things they actually want to have without having a job or having that as their main source of income (impossible for most of the population) is indicative of the monolithic Woman--all women. AND because men race to reserve women or their domestic, reproductive, and sexual activities for themselves so they can prove their superiority and successful masculinity, women are more in--excuse my French--"high demand" within the patriarchal sexual dynamics. It does not matter to them that women experience a lot of sexual violence and reject or try to divert them because of the fear and/or true threat of violence and they do not link that violence to the man's need to own women. Because to deny is to justify objectifying the woman/target. So men, by default, have very low standards for a potential female "partner's" personality, as her role is economic and male-group validating above everything else.

If women could have this and I can't, all women must be "luckier" than me, so I hate her. And why should I have to provide for a woman to have sexual control over her or get her interested in me when any other guy could do better than me?

Meanwhile, they don't even get how:

anger is an emotion, and it just builds until it lashes out at the right conceived inconvenience

their preoccupancy with work-work-rewardness "proving" their masculinity directly contradicts its own purpose when they wax remorse over "all" women having the ability to gain rewards without "work" (which is it, you want eternal "rest" or eternal work? AND it is men with accumulated generational wealth or men who have no business willingly spending money they do not have)

And finally, because they perceive that they are close to that stoic-everyman-topman-ideal, that their manhood grants them proximity to it--and thus superiority over women to it--they can always replace their current partner once they do not "love" them anymore OR they look to the "upgraded" trophy woman who makes them look better to other men...until they get intimidated or resentful of that woman's success, wealth which he covets.

Man is inherently self-sabotaging and justifying it.

[msfbgraves]

Knights and Pawns…this world the story takes place in comes off as highly…”sexualized” for lack of better word. There’s something very primal/a barely restrained primal nature with regards to the social dynamics. Especially, or mainly, between Alphas and Omegas.

Alphas seem to just restrain themselves from jumping an Omega’s bones. There’s a sense of sensual danger and dominance and submission in many an interaction. A feel of ownership and claiming—those bite marks themselves come off as the physical sign of this sexy ambiance. A social and acceptable and very public hierarchy of Doms and subs.

Omegas themselves are like hypersexulized beautiful little nymphs from a Nabakov wet dream who turn Alphas from horny functioning people into rapist salivating wolves with their mere presence, a glance of their eyes. Their scent. Sex seems to be lurking (simmering?) just under the surface of ever interaction between Alpha and Omega, and perhaps Alpha and others, if the mood is right.

This society loves babies, and children, and perhaps the making of them even more. Alphas like Terry seem obsessed with breeding their mates back to back. Show them off, yes, this is what I did to my pretty Danny. Alphas in general seem to have this possessive and obsessive nature towards their mates—especially Omegas—while Omegas themselves are so coy and flirtatious without even trying. The definition of “she said no, that really means she wants it”.

No matter how brazen or brave an Omega is, even Daniel, they appear to turn into jelly once an Alpha gets their hands on them. It’s like a 1950s housewife pennynovel fantasy brought to life. It’s dangerously hot, but also a little dark. Or a lot, depending. But yeah. The whole setting is very sensual and passionate. Sultry even in suburbia.

I really enjoyed this analysis and I thank you for it. I have no problem with sultry suburbia at all, I'm just curious, Nonnie - are you perhaps a little annoyed by this fantasy I built? Goodness knows, I am often foaming at the mouth at The Karate Kid III and Cobra Kai, so I know that this feeling doesn't keep people from enjoying something and thinking about it and sharing those thoughts. And maybe I'm not even right in how interpret what you've written.

I can only say it's not a manifesto. I'm not advocating for how people ought to live. I simply like Putting Them In Situations and writing about all kinds of gender and sexism and fear issues and thinking that it might feel very safe having a Big and Strong person around until that person and you do not see eye to eye, and I also like writing about manipulating in relationships, which, and that's what patriarchy always omits, usually comes from not being able to say no to such a person. But you know, flirting with machos is also quite funny at times. And I wanted a world in which Daniel LaRusso is allowed to get pegged and spend his time hugging people and making food and maybe dance or play a bit of music because that is all that character really wants, leave him alone! And power dynamics, if they float your boat, are very sexy but you can't tell people that in our world, because you might as well say you support global warming. And yet it's something more people enjoy but don't ever admit, so they put it in all kinds of places in media they would never put convential romantic storylines and that just irks me. Teenage me did not put on Buffy the Vampire Slayer to contemplate two forty something men being somehow very kinky in a high school library in broad daylight. I did not watch the karate kid III expecting to ship Daniel LaRusso with Terry Silver. So if these things are a bit opener in omegaverse - and I know I'm certainly not the only one writing these things, going by Ao3 - that's a relief to me. Because sometimes I do put on Jane Eyre or Miss Julie to watch people playing sexy power games and that's all fine and dandy when you're in the mood, but most of the time you're like, watching, say, X Men Apocalypse and thinking: "Why is this in there. Why is a purple monster making bedroom eyes at Charles Xavier. I mean, I'll take it, but honestly, this hardly seems the place!"

[supermaks]

i was afraid to be blocked by op of the original y/n voyeur post but honestly thank you thank you thank you for saying what you said i agree with you a million times over and think you are very correct. slapping a margaret atwood quote on something does not a great feminist critique make, esp if it's used to dunk on ppl who want to feel accepted by a patriarchal society through daydreaming about fucking a hot millionaire. let the fucking capcut teenagers be, authors of mpreg omegaverse maxiel. you are ultimately one and the same and it's okay.

😭😭 Lmfao I did get bl0cked so like. No ur right by all means lets discuss why people daydream about their relationships wid men in power and frame their worth around that but whats the point of isolating ‘y/n’ social media AUs in cis white male dominated content like f1lbr like it’s some type of indigestible unhinged anti feminist performance when the capitalist toll to engage wid the patriarchy is that u have to reaffirm it and by blogging exclusively about cis straight men and how they relate to one another that is what we’re doing. So u want to weave theory about the 'fantasy of not experiencing misogyny while perfectly recreating the cesspool where misogyny is perpetrated' and how it applies to ‘y/n’ maybe first consider the self imposed norms of the heteronormative patriarchal ocean u been recreating and go from there. But we can’t do that because suddenly the act drops once its time to interact wid fan content of these men that we personally enjoy and appeals to us in whichever way it does. It’s no longer a performance for their sake it’s for ours because we do it right and that particular demographic does it wrong. Turns out there’s a right way to center men in narratives while dismissing women and we found it unlike them who ‘reproduce misogyny’. If there is a vested interest suddenly u are not ur own voyeur, ur not a ‘voyeur’ at all, ur simply consuming male centered content that was created for you because there was a demand. For what we'll never find out lmfao prolly some type of reality

[finer-k0alateez]

tldr: scattered thoughts on barbie with a quick rant on hetero relationships. from a queer dude

my thoughts on barbie(for those who haven’t seen it) is you should go in expecting the leggo movie, not don’t look up. it is funny and does come from the perspective of women(which in this society makes it political) but it’s not a political satire in proper. it’s a movie for kids about toys. it’s for girls specifically so the themes are aimed at their beliefs. like if you’ve had a conversation with a woman about gender relations in the past three years. it’s a kiddie version of that.

maybe i was expecting a thinkpeice just because i haven’t seen any other barbie media(and didn’t really consider the implications of matel making a movie about barbie and it not just being sum sweet for the kids) but idk like… not only the promo but also the initial reaction was very political but again i guess it’s just cause “woman bad”

margot robie crush is definitely getting worsaa

yeah just expect a silly little girl power movie

(for those who have seen it.)

(there’s no spoilers, and nothing to spoil- cuz, again, silly little movie, but i’m gonna make points that are informed by having seen the movie)

i think the themes are really cool. i think getting this glimpse into women’s views on society and gender relations and men has been really interesting for me. not only the makers of the film but also the core audience and fanbase talking about the film i’ve just seen heard the perspective of women in really fresh way

as far as society and patriarchy, women think it sucks, that’s not news.

but the thoughts on hetero relations and men were interesting to me.

i saw one person draw the parallel that in patriarchy-Ken’s “perfect world” they dominate and women are given tasks and jobs whereas in Barbies perfect world men just don’t matter. highlighting the difference in cruelty of forced dominance verses toleration.

i think this really hits home. one of the main themes of the movies is that the kens are like stupid and sad and insecure. which is definitely a lot more progressive of an idea to have of men then evil so i just appreciate the attempt made there.

though i think that line about how kens don’t matter to barbies and are not needed gets at a key feeling that incels hold and that’s that most men do not feel intrinsically valuable or wanted.

common incel recruitment phrase is “only women and children are loved unconditionally. men are only loved if and when they provide something.” and it just represents the subjectification of men that comes along with the objectification of women.

in patriarchy and capitalism boys are raised to be doers, good little worker bees who provide their whole nuclear family’s income on their own. while women are raised to please a man and raise his children.

in patriarchy’s eyes, women’s value comes from being. being pretty, being a warm hole/baby factory, being a wife, and while domestic labor has always been expected, it hasn’t always been understood by misogynists to be real work in any capacity. men on the other hand must do. they must make money, or make good sex, or make the giggles, or make the first move.

i think this objectification/subjectification difference has a lot of bearing on our ability to understand and be intimate with one another. women long to be subjectified. this is what barbie represents. the woman who can do and be anything. the ultimate subject. in her perfect world everything is done by her to her liking, leaving kens without purpose. in kens perfect world he is the ultimate object. the horses, the cars, the dumb movies, all things to be observed and admired. “the horse is an extension of the man.” under patriarchy the thoughts, beliefs and being of a man are inherently more valuable-inherently more important. to draw meaningful breath in kentopia one needed only to be ken.

this shows up in women’s relationships with other women and men’s relationships with other men. women do things for one another. gifts, acts of service, and more importantly they show intamacy by sharing secrets, helping each other cope with things, and providing support in hard times, this is often seen as a failing of male relationships but i’ve always seen it as a difference in values between men and women. male intimacy isn’t about being needed or useful or helpful it’s about being wanted. it’s about ones presence in the other’s life being valued including and especially in the absence of purpose. men watch tv shows and baseball games they could’ve watched alone, together. they buy video games they aren’t excited about just to play them with one another.

these differences (i think) lead to the riffs we see in hetero dating. women and men speak different languages of intimacy. women put forth the effort toward being a true confidant and dependable ally and are disappointed to find that men won’t put forth the effort to pursue and earn the right to be with them and enjoy those benefits. but men put forth the effort of unconditional love and acceptance and desire for their partner and are disappointed to find that women often view them as one option of many who will need to earn and keeping earning his place in her heart.

i think the the most honest part of gretas portrayal of kens and barbies is that the happy ending for the barbies is regaining their sensibilities and capabilities(their power to do) and for the kens it’s learning how to find value in themselves(their right to be).

[feral-radfem]

About your opinion on erotica, I'm an OSA leaning febfem, and while my sexuality has been warped to a degree by exposure to erotica/porn in late teen years; I thought I'm the only one who's found erotica unappealing? I haven't read gay/lesbian erotica so I can't give my opinion on that, but het erotica is just...male dominant verbs and vocabulary and pornhub-esque language used to describe hetero activities (piv or otherwise), the woman having an extreme desire to be dominated, the woman is the passive/submissive sexual partner by default

...almost as if she herself doesn't feel that much attraction to the male partner. I've checked out a dozen of het erotica and I've stumbled upon het sex scenes in novels that are not erotica, and none of them have turned me on. None. The female perspective feels too passive, sacrificial or self degrading to me idk. Even the most vanilla het sex scenes have male-active vocabulary, let's be honest. I haven't seen someone come up with some creative new female-active vocab--or if they do they use it in a degrading way instead of depicting dominance/agency.

Not only was it not enjoyable, but it worsened my perception of my body. It can be so degrading to the point where it made me feel like my vagina is just inferior. Whether it's the interior part with which piv happens or the exterior, visible parts. At one point in my life when I did not know of female biological advantages, and the advantages of having a relatively smaller body, the physical power dynamic in erotica/sex scenes made me unable to look at myself in the mirror. One work without trigger warnings is enough to do this. One doesn't need to specifically read erotica constantly to feel this way.

And the femdoms are just--too much idk I don't like bdsm anyways.

I already live in a religious country with the most unpleasant of people, so I didn't need to feel even worse about my body. So after 18, I didn't read any, and began skipping the sex scenes in books.

If I remember correctly, I've had the honor of reading a line like, "While I've been taught the values of feminism my whole life, what I desire in bed is not that feminist." Something in that lines. I've read this maybe five years ago; I don't remember that accurately...and like? Why's she talking like her preferences aren't mainstream in hetero spheres, even the feminist ones? I've read a whole ass article on why being a female sub in hetero bdsm doesn't make a woman any less of a feminist; and that "aksually, the sub has all the power and decides the course1!!!111!" and then the female character throws a pity party over the fact that what she likes in bed is not...acceptable?

It was a good book with an interesting plot but I put down the book after that one line. Maybe the sex scene wasn't that bad but I couldn't care less.

I haven't purchased the local romance/erotica books because for one, fuck people's definition of romance and two, I don't want to read one more shitstain mention the virginity seal (the tests are still legal here), and three I'm repulsed by any potential themes of religious prostitution, but my friends have told me it depicts explicit rape and abuse (not modernized like bdsm, just classic abuse)--and honor murder; it is shown as something that makes the female character fall further in love. They told me not to read any.

Sorry for my rambling. I just wanted to add my perspective. I haven't read erotica for a while now so I don't know if anything's changed.

Thanks for your blog.

First off you never ever have to apologize to me nor anyone else for engaging in a public forum. You have just as much right to use the functions of this blog that I have kept open to the public as everyone else. You've done nothing wrong, so there's no need to apologize. :)

The patriarchy keeps women complicit by convincing us that us, as individuals, are the only women uncomfortable with aspects of patriarchal society that we are pressured to engage in. That is rarely the case however. It may not be comforting to some, but I find it very relieving to know that there is 7 billion people on this planet and I'm not unique amongst them. There are hundreds of thousands of women who have lived life so similar to mine that I could never be alone in my negative feelings nor my positive ones and that applies to everyone else too.

Thank you for your perspective around heterosexual erotica. I'll have to admit that's not a form of erotica I ever willingly engaged in before I stop engaging in this media myself. So your perspective is great. I'm not surprised that those writings seem to focus on how women performed in the bedroom as a act rather than how they felt, even though it is written by women typically. Nor am I surprised that it is typically presented as a man domineering over a woman. That is simply women's writings reflecting our society, and though many of them don't recognize this when putting it out in the public, reinforcing women's positions within the bedroom to other women.

We all have a male voyeur living in our head watching us and when there's not we keep ourselves in line by guessing and adjusting to how we believe men would perceive us at any given moment. That's a paraphrasing of another woman's theory, I believe Margaret Atwood but I think it's applicable here. It has become so ingrained into women, I believe osa women especially due to the intimacy amongst you and men, that their purpose is to serve others first and consider themselves never that I'm not incredibly surprised that their writings reflect that perspective of themselves. For women who have known no difference in their own intimate lives and haven't had nothing different reflected to them through other women's experiences they begin to believe that their subservience under men is natural, even though we know it is not.

A lot of times women will justify their own behaviors by calling them feminist, especially with choice feminism being the dominant strain of feminism at the moment, because there is shame and understanding that you are helping to uphold the system that hurts you. There's embarrassment associated with that. So I don't think it's incredibly shocking that women who actively engage in power dynamics that disadvantage them try to convince themselves that they are actually the ones in control. They feel like they need to do these things to keep their partner (which they believe is a necessary milestone to meet to be "good" women) or that it's simply expected of them with the threat of consequences for inadequate service. So the cognitive dissonance helps them do what they believe they have to or justify not taking accountability for the things they're choosing to do.

I personally think romance is a little overrated, especially as a literary genre. A lot of times romance novels, especially ones written by women, are used to create the idea in other woman's heads that they are good men out there and they just have to find the right one. It completely dismisses that most of these men act like normal well-adjusted people at the beginning of relationships and then steadily get worse the more emotionally dependent or attached their partner becomes. Well I definitely wouldn't put them in the same category I put erotica, which I believe is detrimental, I think romance novels are idealistic and have a hard time suspending my belief, especially when I start seeing signs of codependency being romanticized. People who don't engage in romantic novels aren't necessarily missing much.

Thanks again for the message, I wouldn't have known the perspective of women who read heterosexual erotica otherwise. Your participation was valuable. :)

[thesweetestspot]

🎉 Marie, Carmen, Zane

oh now this is a fun bunch.

we're gonna start off strong with one of my favorite pastimes; ghosting...and im sorry, mon cherie, but marie? you're gonna have to walk your socialite ass right back home. make sure not to drag your feet, wouldn't want to ruin those louboutins on the sidewalk.

i'm going to hang out with zane. he's a little goofy, from what i've been told, as well as what i've heard from him on that podcast he does- what the fuck is it called again? tripping into shit no one cares about or something? whatever... i'd probably get a few, good, solid laughs out of him. or tears. either would be entertaining.

finally, i'm going to party with hot shot carmen. not only is she a racer, but she does it in STILETTOS? imagine; absolutely mutilating the patriarchy by dominating a male-driven sport wearing something that leaves little to the imagination with freshly done acrylics. i admire her... or maybe she's just hot and i have a bias. who's to say.

@laviemarie @caramelxcarmen @zerofcksgvn

[anotherghoul666]

52, 69 [ hehe ] & 70, if you don't mind 😊 I hope you have a good rest of your day! - Anon lurker 👀

You got it buddy!

52. Do you believe everything happens for a reason? Nope. I believe shit happens, and we make reasons for it. The human brain being what is it, a brain made for pattern recognition with a capacity for abstraction and reasoning (that we love to demonstrate over and over as a way to strangely elevate ourselves over the animal), I believe we will see pattern, tie dots together, make wild connections and leaps to assign some sort of logic to illogical things, because if we don't do that, we wouldn't be able to process the world. Shit just happens. We make it meaningful. Out of grief, out of love, out of coping mechanisms, out of habit, doesn't matter. We assign meaning to things to make them hurt less, or to make them more beautiful. But life is random as fuck. Life is not predictable. It's not under our control. Humans are a blip in the universe, to believe everything happens for a reason, a reason our brains would be able to comprehend and process no less? It’s so egotistical and, well, now that I think about it, a very human thing to do hahaha. I find comfort in knowing sometimes shit just happens and it's well beyond my understanding. That's why we call it "accidents" or "nature" or "fate", whatever vocabulary we've assigned to it to make randomness more palatable. I like senseless happenings. I like not having a part in anything, it eases the mind, the lack of responsibility. Things happen. This will happen no matter what. I can choose to assign it meaning and do something with it, or let it be random as it is and move on.

69. Do you believe in soulmates? It entirely depends on which versions of soulmates we're talking about, and how tied that version is to values that were fed to us by the patriarchy / the colonizer / the christian church / capitalism (and those are just my cultural influencers, feel free to swap them out for the ones that are relevant to your life situation). Yes I'm going political, I debated with myself and fuck it Imma do it XD Do I believe in "the one true person on the planet you're destined for" soulmate? Absolutely not. I find that to be such bullshit, but I recognize it's a fantasy very specifically engineered to benefit the aforementioned structures. It's reductive of the human experience to say there's only one person out there for you. Oooh, work hard, be good cause you gotta find them, you gotta catch their eye, and once you do you'll be perfectly happy together no problem for the rest of your lives. It's infantilizing, and that's on purpose. It serves the dominant cultural strain. I personally don't subscribe to monogamy. I believe it’s a cultural choice people make, and I believe it lines up with some people’s values, and I respect that 100%. People’s lives are not mine to judge. But. Monogamy’s not my life path. It's one of the things, alongside religion, that I'm currently trying to deconstruct and decolonize in my life, within my realistic means. I don't believe it's fair or realistic to expect one person to meet all the needs I have now and will ever have. I guarantee you I'm not the complete sum of what someone else needs and will need either. I don't want to be. I have multiple partners. Doesn’t that mean none of them are my soulmates? Or I just haven't met the right one yet? I reject that. I believe all these people are my soulmates. I believe there have been multiple people I’ve crossed paths with in my life that were my soulmates and either I saw it or I didn't and I missed out. I believe there will be many more people in my life who are soulmates of mine and I'll have to see if I seize it or miss out again. I believe there's potentially tons of people my soul will respond to, will naturally feel close to. My people. I believe there are red strings tying me with people all over the world that I’ve never talked to and maybe never will, for all I know. And strings of other colors. Soulmates to me are just, people that I’m supposed to have in my life and learn something from, or give them something meaningful. Souls that have been with mine before, I don’t know. People that have been circling my life and will continue to do so until I notice it or they do. People I’ll keep tripping over all the time until I welcome them in or they welcome me. Or maybe we never do and that’s ok too! I believe in soul bounds, in fragments, in multiples and multitude, and in making choices. But the “one true love” soulmates version? Nope.

70. Is there anyone you would die for? So that one I had to pause and give legit thought to, so thank you for the thought exercise. I have concluded that, in a side by side situation where it would be me and another person I know on a scale, where one of us needs to die for the other one to survive, I’d take the hit for my life partner, because I sincerely believe she has more to offer the world than I do. I would also take the hit for my dad, but I know for a fact he’d tell me he’s old, he lived, he gave and he’s good to go, he wouldn’t want me to do it. There’s multiple people I’d be down to die with, in a “well shit we’re stuck here so let’s do this together” vibe if they were down, cause otherwise we'd argue endlessly over who goes hahahaha. Ultimately tho, there’s not a lot of people I’d do it for I think?

Jesus anon you put me through the ringer with these ones!! THAT WAS SUPER FUN!! I love brain scratchers like those. Thank you and have a great rest of your day too!

[vtori73]

You know what I find a tad confusing? When groups more oppressed hate another group like... you do realize if they don't like us it's VERY likely they don't like y'all?

This happens kind of often but in this case this is about trans people who are biphobic and honestly it makes NO sense. Like are y'all really THAT desperate to be like and assimilate with the LG✂️BT groups/individuals that y'all will stoop to hating other queer people for no real reason (yes, bigoted reasons aren't real reasons). Sort of similar to when poc are bigoted towards LGBT people, like do you think this will make white Christians/bigots like you? More often than not these people are racist, and the extreme kind and will hate you no matter what.

Also, I'm going to say it despite it probably being controversial but biphobia is NOT just some minor issue, it should be treated on the same level as homophobia and lesbophobia (but as it's OWN thing). Anyone who says otherwise is just ignorant on what our actual issues are and are just full on biphobes. No one wants to admit it though because then they have to reckon with how entrenched LGBT communities are in perpetuating and encouraging biphobia and they don't want that they need easy targets they can punch at to relieve their anger at the allocishetero patriarchy and its MUCH easier to do that at an oppressed group then at the dominate ones actually in power.

"Well bi people ARE privileged," no, they aren't only straight people get privilege for their sexuality and no, passing privilege isn't a real or valid concept and only is used to excuse people's bigoted treatment of an oppressed group. Sure white bi people hold privilege but that's because of their RACE which means none of you other white LGBTQIA+ people are exempt. If you are white you have more privilege than most, but considering these online spaces are mostly made of white people they will always try to divert attention away from that fact and instead find ways to talk about privilege in ANY other capacity to the point of applying in ways that don't make sense at all (basically almost to the point of appropriating the term like they do often with other terms/word like medical ones or aave) and because they REALLY want to believe (or want YOU to believe) they cant oppress others.

Passing privilege, even if a valid concept, would only really benefit white people (or benefit them the most). Same thing for when (usually) white people try to apply it to trans people the only ones who can obtain that privilege are middle class or up white people because gender affects poc much more differently because the standards our society seems out and upholds on us are influenced by whiteness. Like when white trans people & allies gang up on trans poc by calling them transphobic or something they accuse the POC of even though all they did was call out their racism and how much what they said/do is influenced by whiteness.

It is interesting to note also how most of this "privilege" talk only ever is selectively wielded at one specific group even though it doesn't make any sense to do so. Bi women are ALWAYS brought up as being henchmen to the patriarchy even though more often than not white cishet women the ones who are actually the lackies to the patriarchy but also literally everyone has the capacity to be, yes, even Lesbians because doing so isn't dependent on what type of sexual/romantic relationships you are in (shocker I know)!

Also the fact that bi men are never considered in these conversations, by that I mean why is it no one ever stops to think the man in the relationship is the queer one and not the woman or is also queer? It's always "bi woman and their het boyfriends," never the other way around or both and its because this response isnt just based on biphobia but misogynistic biphobia. The boyfriend due to biphobia is assumed straight for being in a relationship with a woman (or maybe more precisely his possible queerness is erased because people assume bi men are just gay & so when a man is with a woman they aren't willing to believe he could possibly be queer). Bi women though deal with that and misogyny on top and because of that are targeted more because yes misogyny adds on to the bigotry we face.

"But bi women are only targeted because het men are dangerous," I won't argue that a lot of cishet men are dangerous but a LOT of these conversations always hinge on assumptions made on people's LOOKS which is bad, you can't assume someone isn't queer based on looks and doing so only feeds into binary thinking on presentation of gender and sexuality. How exactly do you know for sure the man in question is a cishet man and not a closed trans woman, or bi man, or nonbinary person or trans masc/ man or combo of these identities? Or the woman, how do you exactly know she is a cis bi woman?

And also, not going to lie but this really just seems like nothing more than the continued rhetoric that came from political lesbianism. Also ALSO, not to mention if these cishet men are dangerous their first victim isn't going to be a stranger they don't know, that type of thing is in general a pretty rare occurrence, because even if they are homophobic statically speaking their victim is going to be people closest to the cishet man aka THE BI WOMAN, the PARTNER! If he is homophobic there is no way in hell he isn't biphobic, and it makes sense considering how high our rates of abuse are, straight women don't even have as high of levels which just helps prove we face this amount of abuse BECAUSE of biphobia + misogyny & not just because of our "proximity" towards men.

Which moves me to my last point in which this supposed panic and concern for others in the LGBT community over these hypothetical cishet boyfriends let in by bi woman seems nothing more than a lie to openly attack bi woman for what on the surface seems like a reasonable concern and at best performative because if there REALLY was a concern the person you should all be most concerned for is the bi woman but instead they get ridiculed, attacked, and accused of being enablers of homophobic predators.

And again, this all just comes down to ideas and beliefs that came from political lesbianism but let's also take a moment to realize just how eerily similar this is to the trans panic rhetoric of evil men (the cishets boyfriend) pretending to be woman (bi woman pretending to be queer while in a "straight passing" relationship) to get into safe but public spaces designed for cis women (queer public spaces like pride). Both the conservatives and queer people even shift the blame onto the marginalized person instead of the actual person at fault (cishetero predators)!

It honestly goes to show just how much our society will whether intentionally or not protect predators first and foremost over anything else and would rather shit on marginalized people who are often more times than not victims themselves. But it makes sense because our society REALLY hates victims.