#rape mentioned

[angelmeateater]

TW- MENTIONS OF RAPE

THAT WAS THE WORST HELLUVA EPISODE EVER WRITTEN OMGGGGG

CAME OUT OF NOWHERE, WHERE WAS THE BUILD UP? WHY DO THEY REFER TO CHARACTER MOMENTS THAT NEVER HAPPENED??? "U MADE ME REALIZE I COULD CHOOSE" BITCH WHEN, WHEN DID THAT HAPPEN?

THIS EPISODE USES A LOT OF FANCY LANGUAGE TO GET AROUND THE FACT THAT STOLAS AND BLITZ' RELATIONSHIP IS BUILT ON RAPE "YOU ARE NO LONGER OBLIGATION TO SEE ME, TOUCH ME OR BED ME" BEING UNDER OBLIGATION TO FUCK SOMEONE IS RAPE, IT ADMITS THIS FACT YET AGAIN WITH "ALL I CAN SEE IS HOW ITS SO WRONG TO BE TETHERED TO SOMEONE IN SUCH AN UNFAIR WAY" YES. POWER IMBALANCE. RAPE. ITS DANGEROUS FOR A SHOW WITH SUCH A YOUNG AUDIENCE TO SKIM AROUND THIS TOPIC AND MAKE IT SEEM NORMAL. SO NO. JUST BECAUSE STOLAS SAYS HE CARES ABOUT BLITZ DOESN'T MAKE IT ANY LESS RAPE. IT WAS A GOOD THING WHEN HE WAS TELLING BLITZ HE DIDN'T HAVE TO FUCK HIM AND THEN THE SHOW WENT AND TREATED THIS LIKE A BAD THING. THIS IS DANGEROUS. (IF U WANT MORE ON THE SUBJECT U CAN WATCH THIS VIDEO ESSAY BY MADELINE MAYE)

BLITZ IS TOTALLY RIGHT AND ITS A BAD SIGN THAT THE FANDOM TREATS THIS LIKE HE'S WRONG. HELLUVA BOSS HAS A RACIAL HIERARCHY THAT IT HANDLES VERY BADLY, A) IT CAN BARELY DECIDE IF ITS REALLY THERE B) IT DOESN'T REALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT THIS MEANS FOR ITS WORLD, SO I WILL PLAINLY SAY IT MEANS THE WORLD OF HELL THAT VIZZIEPOP HAS CREATED HAS A SYSTEMIC PROBLEM, MUCH LIKE REAL RACIAL HIERARCHIES THERE IS NO REASON FOR IT TO EXIST AND IT IS NOT BASED ON SCIENCE OR ANYTHING, EVEN IF YOU GOT RID OF THIS SEEMINGLY EXPLICIT HIERARCHY, IT WOULD STILL BE THERE, MUCH AS IT IS STILL NOW. I FIND THE SHOW IS FALLING INTO THE SAME PROBLEM AS HARRY POTTER IN THAT IT WANTS TO HAVE A RACIAL HIERARCHY AND A SORT OF "SLAVE RACE" (IMPS MAINLY SEEM TO DO ALL THE SERVANT LIKE JOBS, AS WE CAN SEE IN STOLAS' PLACE, THIS ISN'T NECESSARILY SLAVERY, BUT HONESTLY WE DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE WORLD SO AT THE VERY LEAST WE CAN SAY THE SOCIAL POSITION OF IMPS MEANS THEY CAN'T BETTER JOBS FORCING THEM TO TAKE THE ONES THEY DO. LIKE THAT'S WHY I.M.P. IS SUPPOSED TO BE SO SIGNIFICANT BECAUSE THEY'RE DOING SOMETHING THAT ISN'T USUALLY DONE AND ITS WORKING (HOWEVER U COULD EASILY MISS THIS BECAUSE THEY NEVER FACE ANY PREJUDICE WHEN TRYING TO SET UP THEIR BUSINESS)) YET IT DOESN'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT IT, U SEE FOR MOST MEDIA SET IN A WORLD WITH AN EXPLICIT RACIAL HIERARCHY YOU WOULD EXPECT THAT TO BE THE MAIN FOCUS AND AT LEAST TACKLED IN SOMEWAY, AND MAYBE THERE IS A VERSION OF HELLUVA LIKE THAT IN VIZZIE'S MIND BUT SHES OBVIOUSLY BLINDSIDED BY HER AWFUL GAY SHIP TO CARE ABOUT THAT. INSTEAD WE GET A PIECE OF MEDIA WHERE INSTEAD OF TACKLING WHAT U WOULD EXPECT TO BE ITS MAIN ISSUE, IT ENFORCES IT, EITHER EXPLICITLY OR THROUGH IDEAS. I DON'T HAVE TO TELL U HOW SHITTY THIS IS. THIS IS NOT A PROGRESSIVE SHOW AND IF UR CRITERIA FOR SOMETHING PROGRESSIVE MEANS "HAVING GAY PEOPLE IN IT" THEN U REALLY NEED TO GET UR PRIORITIES IN CHECK MAN, U KNOW I REALLY DIDN'T THINK IT WAS POSSIBLE TO HAVE A SHOW WITH SO MUCH GAYNESS IN IT BUT SO MUCH CONSERVATISM IN IT, ACTUALLY WAIT I CAN BECAUSE THE GAYNESS IN THIS SHOW ISN'T ABOUT QUEERNESS ITS JUST MISOGYNY. ANYWAY BECAUSE OF THE POSITION THE SHOWS LANDED ITSELF IN IT HAS NO CHOICE BUT TO REVERT BACK TO INDIVIDUAL OPINION WHEN A SYSTEMIC ISSUE IS BEING DISCUSSED, THIS IS WHY WHEN BLITZ SAYS "TREAT ME LIKE ONE OF YOUR BUTLER IMPS. YOU ROYAL FUCKS THINK YOU CAN DO THIS EVERY TIME, PLAY WITH OUR FEELINGS BECAUSE WE'RE SMALLER AND NOT AS IMPORTANT", STOLAS HAS NO CHOICE BUT TO SAY " BLITZ I THINK SO VERY HIGHLY OF YOU, I DIDN'T THINK U THOUGHT SO LITTLE OF ME", LIKE OMG BLITZ WAS CLEARLY ADDRESSING THE LARGER SYSTEMIC ISSUES AS WELL AS HOW HE'S BEING TREATED BY STOLAS, AND HE'S TOTALLY FUCKING RIGHT, WE AS AN AUDIENCE HARDLY KNOW WHAT BLITZ EVEN THINKS ABOUT HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH STOLAS, IN FACT THE WHOLE THING, EVEN THROUGHOUT THE VERY EPISODE SEEMS VERY TRANSACTIONAL, BLITZ' FEELINGS ARE NOT CONSIDERED IN THIS RELATIONSHIP, THIS WHOLE INTERACTION IS ABOUT STOLAS' FEELINGS NOT BLITZ', THE AUDIENCE IS SUPPOSED TO THINK BLITZ IS WRONG IN WHAT HE SAYS BUT IN REALITY THE SHOW ITSELF TREATS BLITZ AND THE IMPS JUST AS BLITZ DESCRIBES, BLITZ IS NOT A CHARACTER IN THIS SHOW, HE IS A TOOL FOR A GAY RELATIONSHIP. STOLAS' RESPONSE READS VERY MUCH LIKE A "WHITE WOMAN BEING CONFRONTED BY HER RACIST ACTIONS, ESPECIALLY WHEN THOSE ACTIONS ARE SYSTEMIC" , IT IS TURNING THE SYSTEMIC INTO THE INDIVIDUAL, IT'S "HOW DARE YOU CONFRONT ME ABOUT MY POSITION IN SOCIETY AND THE PROBLEMS THAT I'VE NEVER ADDRESSED, YOU'VE MADE ME UPSET AND UR THE PROBLEM", ITS BAD, ITS SO BAD. THIS SHOW IS SO SHITTY, PLEASE STOP.

LISTEN IF U LIKE THE SHOW U HAVE TO RECOGNIZE ITS ISSUES, ITS NOT JUST BADLY WRITTEN BUT SPREADING SOME DANGEROUS AND CONSERVATIVE IDEAS, IDEAS THAT I KNOW A LOT OF THE YOUNG QUEER AUDIENCE WHO WATCHES IT, WOULDN'T ACTUALLY LIKE, STOP FALLING FOR THE SHOW JUST BECAUSE OF ITS GAY CHARACTERS, IT DOESN'T ACTUALLY LIKE YOU AND YOU SHOULD FIND SOMETHING THAT ACTUALLY CARES ABOUT QUEERNESS RATHER THAN JUST PROFITING OFF YOUR NAIVETY.

[matriarchcomputer]

Please, you liked Armie Hammer once! How can you be a fan of this movie and then coldly erase him like this?! Isn't this a bloated sense of entitlement on your part?! Do you know that Armie Hammer had a pec tear on the day of this fictional 'rape'?! To believe women blindly is dangerous!

(tw: rape mention by anon)

this anon ask is just wild on so many levels. “bloated sense of entitlement for not liking an actor? Like bRUh really? are you good? are you okay? i can be a fan of the movie and not like the actor, I know, that’s shocking but it’s true and it’s okay. you really got your panties in twist huh. boggles my mind that you’re getting butthurt with me. i have so much I could say right now but I won’t because im civilized

[trickstarbrave]

the word "antis" means fuck all at this point. ive seen it to mean active haters who harass people in various fandoms from anime to pop idols. ive seen it to mean ppl who dont like "problematic ships". ive seen it to mean "people who support an actual rape victim who the rapist admitted to sexually assaulting". ive seen it to mean someone who asked for a trigger to be tagged. any time i think ive seen it all there is a new way someone is using the word to describe something serious or even innocuous like its petty fandom drama and theyre haters. i genuinely cant take anyone who says it seriously anymore

like it USED to have a meaning. it's from "anti-fan" in korean which was the kind of person who made cafes or hate accounts for different idols or random shit and spent their free time harassing people, kinda like how in eng we have "hate follower" or "hate watcher". people who only keep tabs on you to shit all over you. eng kpop stans took this, and overused it to mean "anyone who doesnt like kpop/kpop fans" and it spread outward to various fandoms from there. now it just means anything. anyone who is against you or something you like for whatever reason. it's vague with a negative connotation and anyone can and does use it.

[cray-cray-anime]

No joke, unfollow/block me if you think it's ok to do rape threat, suicide bait or generally violent threat to anyone

[puppysynonym]

i am so angry and sad and upset and afraid i might throw up what the fuck gives teenage boys the audacity to make jokes about raping someone right in front of them i want to rip shred tear

[detectivekonan]

i know i didnt get MY diagnosis, until after i cried in a session about my adderall being taken away, with a psychiatrist i had only seen them like 2 TIMES WHEN THIS HAPPENED and now in my record it has little notes about how i cant be prescribed ANY benzos because of having bpd. because theres "no medication for bpd" even though i have complex ptsd and shit and i was prescribed benzos before for the anxiety and it really helped with my heart beat too which worsens the anxiety and i only got off valium in the first place before seeing her was because i was forced to have my MOM hold my medications due to the suicidal hospitalization i had for 5 days when i was just a 4 months past turning 18 and it was a horrible experience because of being a rape victim and being forced to get naked and spread and shit just to prove i didnt stick anything up my ass or vagina like DRUGS or WEAPONS! and yelled at me a while i was at the hospita,l.

[luckyladylily]

So a few months ago there was the discourse about would you rather meet a man or a bear in the woods. I didn't want to touch it while the discourse was hot and everyone dug in hard because those are not good conditions for nuance, but I waited until today, June 1st, for a specific reason.

I'm not going to take a position in the bear vs man debate because I don't think it matters. What is really being asked here is how afraid are you of men? Specifically, unexpected men who are, perhaps, strange.

People have a lot of very real fear of men that comes from a lot of very real places. Back when I was first transitioning in 2015 and 2016, I decided to start presenting as a woman in public even though I did not pass in the slightest.

I live in a red state. I knew other trans women who had been attacked by men, raped by men. I knew I was taking a risk by putting myself out there. I was the only visibly trans person in the area of campus I frequented, and people made sure I never forgot that. Most were harmless enough and the worst I got from them was curious stares. Others were more aggressive, even the occasional threat. I had to avoid public bathrooms, of course, and always be aware of my surroundings.

I know how frightening it is to be alone at night while a pair of men are following behind you and not knowing if they are just going in the same direction or if they want to start something - made all the worse for the constant low level threat I had been living under for over a year by just being visibly trans in a place where many are openly hostile to queer people. You have to remember, this was at the height of the first wave of bathroom law discussions, a lot of people were very angry about trans women in particular. My daily life was terrifying at times. I was never the subject of direct violence, but I knew trans women who had been.

I want you to keep all that in mind.

So man or bear is really the question "how afraid of men are you?", and the question that logically follows is "What if there was a strange man at night in a deserted parking lot?" or "What if you were alone in an elevator with a man?" or "What if you met a strange man in the woman's bathroom?"

My state recently passed an anti trans bathroom bill. The rhetoric they used was about protecting women and children from "strange men", aka trans women.

Conservatives hijack fear for their bigoted agenda.

When I first started presenting as a woman the campus apartment complex was designed for young families. The buildings were in a large square with playgrounds in the center, and there were often children playing. I quickly noticed that when I took my daughter out to play, often several children would immediately stop what they were doing and run back inside. It didn't take me long to confirm that the parents were so afraid of "the strange man who wears skirts" that their children were under strict instructions to literally run away as soon as they saw me.

"How afraid are you of a strange man being near your children?"

I mentioned above that I had to avoid public bathrooms. This was not because of men. It was because of women who were so afraid of random men that they might get violent or call someone like the police to be violent for them if I ever accidentally presented myself in a way that could be interpreted as threatening, when my mere presence could be seen as a threat. If I was in the library studying and I realized that it was just me and one other woman I would get up and leave because she might decide that stranger danger was happening.

Your fear is real. Your fear might even come from lived experiences. None of that prevents the fact that your fear can be violent. Women's fear of men is one of the driving forces of transmisogyny because it is so easy to hijack. And it isn't just trans women. Other trans people experience this, and other queer people too. Racial minorities, homeless people, neurodivergent people, disabled people.

When you uncritically engage with questions like man or bear, when you uncritically validate a culture of reactive fear, you are paving the way for conservatives and bigots to push their agenda. And that is why I waited until pride month. You cannot engage and contribute to the culture of reactive fear without contributing to queerphobia of all varieties. The sensationalist culture of reactive fear is a serious queer issue, and everyone just forgot that for a week as they argued over man or bear. I'm not saying that "man" is the right answer. I am saying that uncritically engaging with such obvious click bait trading on reactive fear is a problem. Everyone fucked up.

It is not a moral failing to experience fear, but it is a moral responsibility to keep a handle on that fear and know how it might harm others.

[txttletale]

non-normative sexuality is not the root of sexual abuse or rape. for a huge amount of history in a huge amount of the world, sexual abuse and rape have been thoroughly normal (cf. marital rape exemptions being removed from US legal codes as recently as 2019). rapists are not 'freaks' -- the default, 'normal' paradigm of sexuality across the world is one of violent misogyny. 640 million women are or were child brides and the men marrying them are not abberations or exceptions, they are normal. men who engage in endemic workplace harassment or frat boys who assault women are behaving in a way that is 'normal', they are fulfiling the gendered expectations for expressions of heterosexual sexuality when they harass and catcall and abuse women. projecting sexual violence onto the specter of the obviously deviant, abnormal outsider is a scapegoating mechanism intended to sanitize and exonerate the cisheteropatriarchal standard of normalized and ubiquitous sexual violence

[awakefor48hours]

Please stop telling people, for any reason, to kill themself. Stop advocating for suicide in any form or capacity.

[spookside]

[takodachibun]

I’m sorry but why the fuck is there like 50 fucking tags solely dedicated to Rape?

Its not even “oh it’s different kinds of it” no

i had to Blacklist like ten of them that was really just R4pemedaddy n R4p3Meuwu

I’m not saying it’s bad or like you can’t differentiate between Rape R4pe and CNC by all means, I’m just annoyed as fuck that there’s not a list freely available so I don’t have to go through n s f w posts and WAIT until my eyes are flashbanged by someone else’s fantasies that happens to be trigger memories of my sexual assault.

[fairuzfan]

Here's a summary of what's been happening in Sudan the past couple of days. It's gotten to the point where women are asking for contraceptives for fear of getting raped by RSF forces.

[headspace-hotel]

okay but like this is what deeply bothers me about the whole "tiktok is making people think every negative experience is a trauma!" thing

Trauma is common. Like really common. How do we accept statistics like "1 in 4 women has been sexually assaulted" or "1 in 3 people grew up in a home with domestic violence" or whatever number of people will fight cancer or be in a car crash or an abusive relationship, and at the same time doubt any suggestion that a lot of people may actually be traumatized?

It's in our cultural definition of trauma—that trauma is some extreme event outside "normal" life, and that the people that experience it are a sequestered group that is well outside the "average" person.

but like, even strictly Criterion A PTSD type "traumatic" events are...not rare. at all. You can be a hardass about it and say that you have to be raped or threatened with death or violence to have trauma, and that's still a lot of people that have experienced that. People around you. People that pass by you every day. People that appear and seem "normal" to you.

if you accept the idea that belonging to certain marginalized groups can have some traumatizing elements to it, "most people are traumatized in some way" is just the most blandly obvious statement ever.

but even if you're for some reason squicky about "watering down" the definition of trauma (lol), we can at least agree that most people are hurt, right? Deeply hurt. Most people have been mangled by their experiences in one way or another. People's behavior is guided by the fact that they are hurt.

One of my dad's sayings, which is earnest and not at all shameful or demeaning, is that People Are Broken. And in church settings (because he was a pastor and is still very devout) his measure of the quality of that church setting was always their ability to come to terms with the fact that People Are Broken, not just people Out There or hypothetical people but us, the people around us, the people we live alongside and befriend and love. And if a church thought of Broken People as an external category of people to be "reached," instead of a near-universal experience of being human in a cruel society, well that church was likely to be, ultimately, toxic. And hardly any church passes that test, because our brokenness is hard to talk about.

We can't admit that most people are traumatized because it means that the call is coming from inside the house, that the menace is contained within our society instead of being a freak accident/act of god/attack by a lone wolf outside of the normal confines of our world.

But this is the truth. That our world, the nice, "normal" world, the everyday world, hurts people. We are not gentle enough for other humans, our society is not kind enough for humans to thrive.

We have to try to be less cruel. We have to understand that almost everyone has endured something unspeakable and has not fully healed. This is why I don't care about watering down the definition of trauma. We have not even begun to fully define the wound. There is no virtue in conserving recognition for the most obvious and extreme human pain. Why would we need less compassion?

[ayeforscotland]

Can 2024 be the year we stop using stupid fucking terms like ‘unaliving’?

Self-censorship is still censorship, and mature conversations should use mature language.

Same can be said of ‘grape’ instead of ‘rape’, ‘corn’ instead of ‘porn’.

We need to be able to discuss these things, and we also need to use that language so people who want to avoid these conversations can block the tags. Using silly language like that circumvents the space that people curate for themselves.

[lilithtransrights]

Hey!! Idk if you know this but terfs on twitter have been screenshotting your kink posts and using them to demonize trans women (calling y’all monsters, r@pists, etc) You might wanna put a fantasy disclaimer on the bottom of your posts but stay safe!!

I don't think there's really a difference to them if there's a fantasy disclaimer or not.

Also woah I'm twitter famous now?

[saywhatyouwillbut]

i’m sorry about kidnapping your boyfriend so we could give the fbi false testimony. yes, i tried to feed him, he thinks thai is too fattening and wouldn’t have any. i also put out a hit on his rapist