#that bc that's a story that's been co-opted so many ways and means

[lioryaakov]

The one question so many Jews dread this time of year....

"So. What is Hanukkah actually about?"

[kindlespark]

Too shy .. but I do agree with you on the Cerebrocast not getting QQ 😔.

OMG HI TWITTER PERSON ok context for everyone else i’ve been listening to cerebrocast (who do not like quentin) but i personally have so many thoughts about quentin quire and i DO hate it because he’s the stupidest whitest bitch in existence.

the thing is that i need his story to have been about white trans/queer rage because he literally looks like he has pink hair and pronouns and something something he looks like a walking trans flag with the pink hair and blue psionics and he’s a fucking PHOENIX HOST. YOU KNOW, THE X-MEN’S MANIFESTATION OF FEMALE RAGE??? ANYWAY. its just nonsensical to me that in new x-men morrison chooses their incel school shooter allegory to be…. a punk counterculture radical anarchist mutant who is driven to action when he sees a (implied gay) mutant fashion designer/activist killed in a hate crime. like i just dont think morrison understands politics. it’s a story that demonises leftist radical protesting/riots, and implies the youth doing it are just fucked up/co-opting it for a trend, and are also just super addicted to drugs all the time lmfao. and it is even bizarrer in retrospect because everyone in comics and making comics now pretty much agrees now that magneto IS right. that is just how minority politics irl have developed!! charles’ assimilationist bullshit is long past!!

HOWEVER. i do think there is a way to redeem/fix that and that’s if we think of it as a story that demonises WHITE counterculture. if we take it as a story that’s like yeah, white leftism and white queer/trans rage without intersectionality is just white supremacy. that tbh is what it should’ve been and i’m never giving grant morrison that credit but that’s what i wanted bc my god white gays are annoying and quentin is like such a perfect encapsulation of that entitlement. tbh. i like him so much as a character but if i knew him irl i’d block him on all platforms and throw him off a cliff etc etc

like i think it’s fine to take quentin’s writing in riot at xavier’s at face value bc morrison WAS seemingly aiming for a criticism on how people co-opt politics to be trendy and as an outlet for more personal issues which does happen! i just think the optics are bizarre for that and it falls into wild horseshoe theory shit and i dont think it WORKS you know i think there’s more interesting ways to take that character that aren’t like “the youth’s anger and protesting and counterculture is stupid” especially because we don’t really HAVE any radical characters that arent consistently villainised. and i think people have tried to do that since wolverine and the x-men with a more defanged pathetic quentin who is i think bi now? idk last i remembered christina strain made him lie that benji was his boyfriend in gen x 2017 but does that count? have they said it more explicitly since then? who knows i dont remember either way i think he’s better having been kicked down a few rungs and given growth. i like that his biggest fear is losing his friends/community at school. im glad that ppl have made him more fun as a character now… but they’ve also done that while wiping the political beliefs/allegory out of his character and making him just that superior annoying dude instead of trying to tackle what it does mean for quentin to have a genuine rage and hatred for how the system oppresses and kills people like him. the story implies that rage was never really genuine and he was just acting out but that SUCKS and is BORING because fuck if im not also angry all the damn time about the state of the world! let us be angry about injustice without demonising that anger! like that is why i do think quentin does have a niche following of queer fans bc like for a moment we connected with that rage from a guy who looks like *waves hand in the air* that

also my hottest take that i got redpilled into via one article i read years ago is that i think idie/quentin/evan could’ve been the next insane phoenix jean/scott/logan love triangle. a LOT of work and writing would need to be done to actually make me care about quentin in any relationship but the potential was there and could’ve been great tbh. we’re long past that era now but sometimes i think about how i would reboot that whoooole schtick into something cohesive like it could’ve been a subversive little queer story of colour if watxm volume 2 wasnt just the quentin quire show and idie/evan got more spotlight and if it wasnt completely incomprehensible or had unfortunate art. BUT ANYWAY.

THIS GOT SO LONG AND IS SOOO INDECIPHERABLE SO SORRY ANON I JUST WANTED TO RANT AND TRULY TWITTER HAS A WORD LIMIT ❤️❤️ thank u for ur support ❤️❤️❤️

[zukkacore]

Btw this is gonna be rly incoherent but tbh I think the fact that too many idiot white ppl w too much influence in media write terrible storylines w/ antagonists that are the worst most villainaized strawmen of an ideology/social movement that is either real or an allegory for a real thing has really harmed our ability to talk abt the portrayal of activism & the representation of basically any anti-establishment characters in media.

Like. Yes it’s obviously shitty writing when antagonists are like. People who have good points but also do bad things like kill people to show they have gone “too far” (gag), but that’s the irritating thing about it. Any indication from the antagonists to criticize or change the status quo of the world is met with SO MUCH resistance, it creates this like..... idk, knee jerk reaction from anyone w half any sense b/c we know villainizing social justice causes is um.... wrong and bad. Because these antagonists are so obviously strawmen, they’re so flat that it removes the stories of literally any nuance. But idk, I feel like In an attempt to overcompensate we act like no activist movement has ever been incomplete or flawed & that media has no right to portray a movement which isn’t 100% palatable—which I feel like doesn’t do anyone any favors bc it’s just not reflective of history, and it’s not even reflective of modernity. And I don’t mean this in a “well there’s always two sides of the story, why can’t you sympathize with oppressors too!” kind of way. I mean more that participants & leaders in activist movements have intersecting identities that give them both privlege as an oppressor & marginalization as an oppressed person and that like... is important to shape the kind of activism they participate in and influence. I mean,

1) plenty of awful people who had bigoted views have been championed as the leaders of social movements—first wave feminism in America being a prime example bc they were mostly uh, racist white women who had no intention of fighting for suffrage for poc... I think we can all agree that anyone opposing women’s suffrage would be seen as uh, wrong, both then and now but also keeping in mind the limitations of first wave feminism is also important bc otherwise you’re just glorifying a revisionist history

2) tbh the bigger a movement gets the more it usually gets watered down to be more palatable and nonthreatening, and also the more it’s likely gonna be co-opted by capitalist companies being opportunistic, the less power it has, so like, any bite that used to exist is probably long gone. (Again, examples: more and more mainstream normalization of lgbt acceptance & feminism is a good thing but let’s not act like things like pinkwashing & rainbow capitalism aren’t exhausting & just putting a fresh coat of paint on an old problem...)

3) as much as I hate the individualist explanation when it comes to antagonists in media “this singular person is a moral failure” or whatever, sometimes ppl irl.,,. Just straight up co-opt social movements bc they’re opportunistic & see it as a way to gain social capital. Like. I think we all can probably name a celebrity that maintained a woke personal brand then turned out to be a piece of shit...

But like, idk, at the same time, I don’t think most western white writers have the nuance to portray the complications of reality when they’re still out here being like “well Vulture made some points but he kills ppl so spidey has to stop him :(((((“ & “Bane made some points when we made him an obvious parallel to the occupy wall street movement but also he has a bomb :((((“ & “The earth queen is a horrible person who conscripted an Airbender army and abuses her power but zaheer wanting to kill world leaders bc we don’t understand anarchism :((((“

Anyway y’all are free to disagree with me I guess

[firelord-frowny]

I’ve talked a little bit about how at least one ~negative aspect~ of white supremacy/racism that impacts white people is that it can be SO DIFFICULT to avoid being Accidentally Racist over something that really shouldn’t have been that deep, and WOULDN’T have been that deep if not for the pervasiveness of white supremacy in america, and this bit about the lil country band Lady Antebellum and the controversy surrounding their name illustrates that pretty well, I think:

The band members have always said that the band's name was chosen arbitrarily, complaining about the difficulty of choosing a name. Inspired by the "country" style nostalgia of a photo shoot at a mansion from the Antebellum South, they said, "one of us said the word and we all kind of stopped and said, man, that could be a name"[40] and "Man that's a beautiful Antebellum house, and that's cool, maybe there's a haunted ghost or something in there like Lady Antebellum."[41] Haywood concluded, "[We] had a lady in the group, obviously, and threw Lady in the front of it for no reason. I wish we had a great resounding story to remember for the name, but it stuck ever since."[40] The name was always controversial, with a critic in Ms. Magazine writing in 2011 that the band's name "seems to me an example of the way we still — nearly 150 years after the end of the Civil War, nearly 50 years after the Civil Rights Act; and in a supposedly post-racial country led by a biracial president — glorify a culture that was based on the violent oppression of people of color".[41][42]

On June 11, 2020, joining widespread commercial response to the George Floyd protests,[41] the band announced it would abbreviate its name to its existing nickname "Lady A"[43] in an attempt to blunt the name's racist connotations.[1] The band members stated on social media that, never having previously sought the dictionary definition of the word "antebellum", they now consulted their "closest black friends and colleagues" so that their "eyes opened wide to the injustices, inequality and biases black women and men have always faced and continue to face every day. Now, blind spots we didn't even know existed have been revealed."[44] Fan response was mixed, with many decrying virtue signaling or even disparaging the protests.[41]American Songwriter said, "Given that the world knows what that A stands for, to many this change does little more than add extra insult to this ongoing injury."[45]

The next day, it was widely reported that the name "Lady A" had already been in use for more than 20 years by Seattle-based African American activist and blues, soul, funk, and gospel singer Anita White. The band again admitted ignorance of any prior use, which White called "pure privilege". Interviewed by Rolling Stone, White described the band's token acknowledgement of racism while blithely appropriating an African American artist's name: "They're using the name because of a Black Lives Matter incident that, for them, is just a moment in time. If it mattered, it would have mattered to them before. It shouldn't have taken George Floyd to die for them to realize that their name had a slave reference to it. It's an opportunity for them to pretend they're not racist". A veteran music industry lawyer observed that such name clashes are uncommon due to the existence of the Internet.[46][47] The band members contacted White the next week to apologize for having inadvertently co-opted and dominated her name,[48] saying that the Black Lives Matter movement had inspired them to a collaborative attitude. They nonetheless required retaining the same name, though she believed dual-naming is inherently impossible.[49]She said "We talked about attempting to co-exist but didn't discuss what that would look like"[48] because the band members would not directly respond to that explicit question three times during the conversation or in two contract drafts. She soon submitted a counteroffer that either the band would be renamed, or that her act would be renamed for a $5 million fee plus a $5 million donation to be split between Seattle charities, a nationwide legal defense fund for independent artists, and Black Lives Matter.[49]

On July 8, 2020, the band filed a lawsuit against White, asking a Nashville court to affirm its longstanding trademark of the name. The press release read: "Today we are sad to share that our sincere hope to join together with Anita White in unity and common purpose has ended. She and her team have demanded a $10 million payment, so reluctantly we have come to the conclusion that we need to ask a court to affirm our right to continue to use the name Lady A, a trademark we have held for many years."[50]

On September 15, 2020, White filed a counter-suit asserting her claim to the Lady A trademark and rejecting the notion that both artists could operate in the same industry under the same brand identity. She is seeking damages for lost sales and a weakened brand, along with royalties from any income the band receives under the Lady A moniker.[51][52]

Like????????? this REALLY didn’t need to be a thing. 

And one thing I think black folks and other poc need to chill out with is dismissing any white person’s attempt at Being Better in how they move through a white supremacist world in a way that seeks to undo or at least not exacerbate white supremacy. I can TOTALLY believe that, in their white ignorant bliss, this band really did choose their name without realizing for a moment that it might leave a fucked up taste in some people’s mouths. Honestly like... antebellum IS a cool sounding word lmfao and if it wasn’t so heavily associated with slavery-era america, i’d wanna name something antebellum, too! 

And like, yes, it’s true that it ~shouldn’t have taken george floyd’s death~ for anyone at all to suddenly decide that they want to go a little bit out of their way to denounce or at least not seem to promote racism in some small way. But it did. And it does. And every fucking time there’s a gross act of violence and injustice acted out on a person of color in front of the world, there’s always going to be a brand new white person out there who Sees The Light for the very first time. That doesn’t mean their new perspective isn’t genuine, and it doesn’t mean it happened All Of A Sudden. If anything, it was something they’d been thinking about for a long time, but didn’t know how to address it, or what to say, or who to say it to, or how to talk about it in their own community. OBVIOUSLY that problem is WAY LESS BAD than, ya know, actually experiencing racism, but it’s still a real thing that some white folks go through, and being mad about it isn’t going to make it NOT a real thing. it shouldn’t have taken george floyd’s death. it shouldn’t have taken trayvon martin’s death. it shouldn’t have taken the instatement of one of the most vile human beings to ever assault the face of the earth for This Person or That Person to finally want to make a positive and public change, BUT IT DID. It always does. That, unfortunately, is How It Works. 

And so, this band adjusts it’s name in an effort to not seem hostile. OBVIOUSLY it’s not a grand show of solidarity. OBVIOUSLY it’s not meant to convince anyone that they’re Super Amazing White People Who Will Stop At Nothing For Racial Equality. It was literally just a small, simple gesture. They’re just modifying their image, because they were no longer comfortable with knowing how that word makes a lot of people feel. Bc like... let’s be real: probably a solid ZERO of their fanbase would have given a shit if they’d just left the name as it was. Nobody who’s going to a Lady Antebellum concert was pouting about the name. And if anything, they prolly stood a better chance of LOSING fans for ~being politically correct~ than gaining fans for changing their name to something less annoying. 

And it JUST SO HAPPENS that the slight lil adjustment they made to their name steps on the toes of an existing artist, and it JUST SO HAPPENS that this artist is black, and is also an ACTIVIST in social and racial justice. 

Oops. 

And so, obviously people don’t interpret it as an honest mistake. Instead, it’s a result of white privilege. And I mean like??? ok, maybe it is. But I ALSO had never heard of Anita White until I read this fucking wiki page lmfao. So like... my ignorance isn’t due to no white privilege on my part. Maybe it’s a consequence of a white supremacist culture that wouldn’t glorify her and celebrate her and put her name everywhere... but that’s a different thing from privilege. 

So now not only are the bands efforts to adjust to a world that’s becoming more aware of racial injustice being dismissed as disingenuous or too-little-too-late, but now they’re ALSO being accused of Using Their White Privilege to trample all over an artist they’d never heard of. 

i DO think that after finding out the name was already taken, and after talking with her about it and determining that she wasn’t interested in sharing - as is her right - they should have just said “ok, sorry, thanks for talking with us about it” and picked something different. i think it’s kinda ridiculous that they think they should sue her and i think she’s HELLA right for suing their asses right back, and I hope she gets her damn money. 

But I’m also cognizant of how emotionally/psychologically upsetting it can feel to have to just Change Your Name after so many years of living with it. It makes sense that despite their desire to adapt and choose a new name that doesn’t make people cringe, they still want to try to hold on to the feeling that THEY associated with their own name. “Lady A” seemed like a happy medium: They can remain Who They Are while also showing that Who They Are is someone who’s not trying to glorify a disgusting era of history. But if “Lady A” isn’t an option... what’s left? What else could they call themselves that wouldn’t feel like a totally new, alien identity?? 

So, I understand how, on an emotional level, they want to fight to keep it. 

But uh. They really need to just Be Sad about it and let it go. Just consider it one of the small, upsetting sacrifices that white folks may sometimes have to make as we ALL struggle and stumble through this fuckin long-ass road of Making The World Less Terrible For People Of Color, and move on. 

But yeah, like. 

It’s fucking ridiculous that this was even an issue, and it was only an issue because of racism!!!!! If white supremacists didn’t manufacture a culture that oppresses people of color and glorifies the pre-civil-war era SPECIFICALLY for the good ol slavery, then perhaps people could wax poetic about the artistic and environmental aesthetic of that era without it being assumed that they Must Be Racist. Bc like??? idk if yall know this lmfao but i LOVE????? colonial american music. like, the kind of stuff with that Ashokan Farewell vibe. I think it sounds beautiful. And i really fuckin love the black spiritual music that was developed in that time. and i think so much of the architecture and fashion was so???? Nice. Just pleasant! But I can’t even get myself to fully enjoy it because of all the fuckin connotations that have been stuck to it. 

A band should be able to name theirself a name without it being such a goddamn fucking cultural crisis. 

But they can’t! And it is! 

Thanks, White Supremacy! 

[roominthecastle]

A ‘bullet point text reaction’ post thing to the season premiere would be forking good. If you can spare the time in between all the rewatching and RL, which again might be messin with the rewatching. Ps. sexy librarian ftw.

Apologies for the late reply, anon, and thank you for the interest. I gave it a try but apparently I had a lot more rambling in me than expected, so I’m not sure how much the bullet point format will help. Still, I rolled w/ it behind the cut:

obv spoilers ahead for those who haven’t seen + it’s mostly Michael focused but who is surprised at this point? ok, here we go:

Yes. All hail the Sexy Librarian Guy! 👍

and his ~~flawless~~ Australian accent lmao. I am no native speaker but even I could hear it was just… delightfully off. I love this disaster zone demon so much.

and how pleased he was that Eleanor was pleased w/ that particular “intervention”. It’s a small but nice reminder of how making her happy makes him happy now. #oppositeTorturesRule

it’s a v small thing but I also loved the “fast food link”: Michael being ecstatic about the Pizza Hut/Taco Bell combo & Eleanor fantasizing about Chipotle during Chidi’s lecture on Aristotle. It reminded me of that s1 moment when she tells Michael about those Arizona churro dogs and they both just go ahhhhhhhh at the image + Judge Gen ofc (they love fast food in the afterlife)

also also the sweet ache of Michael being entangled in her ticker tape while insisting on nudgy-nudge-nudge her & Chidi together bc that’s how it should be is still pressing hard on my heart thank you v much

but

I think that being deprived of close contact w/ his humans is causing Michael to slide back into puppet master mode again. His motivation is different or “reformed” now (secretly helping instead of secretly torturing) but his methods, his itch to control everything (and failing), and the rigid focus on his goals are… not so much, imo, and I love it bc this is Michael: he is a nerd but also an idiot w/ Wile E. Coyote vibes. Janet tries to reel him in but she can’t. Eleanor was the only one who could control him and she was the only one whose advice he actively sought and listened to, but she cannot be there for him now, so yes, I am getting a lot of S1 vibes from this double ep complete w/ her unintentionally messing w/ his formula by not falling for Chidi & the arrival of Trevor. *rubs hands*

COCOONS

so many

so… squishy

and TODD! I never thought I would see him so soon but I was right: he is the best lava monster and fork you, Shawn, for being a jerk to him when he was nothing but supportive and even brought you guys Dunkin’ Spiders to snack on.

I love Shawn, he is the perfect baddie, and I love that we got another glimpse into how TBP operates w/ all their excruciatingly low-tech gadgets. It’s in sharp contrast to (even Michael’s fake) TGP where everything is so neat, efficient, and high-tech. It’s another nice reminder of how the torturers are also being made miserable in TBP in various ways. I can’t blame Michael for wanting to keep his failing experiment running as long as possible.

Judge Gen (who continues to be a delight and way too relatable w/ her binge-watching of media content) is so up to something, people. I cannot shake this feeling that this whole “Operation Resurrection” is not what it looks like on the surface at all. Maybe it’s an experiment within an experiment sort of deal. I mean, why does she trust Michael of all creatures w/ the monitoring duty at all?? She might be quirky but she is def not stupid. She must know he’s a natural rule breaker who’s incapable of sitting still for longer than 2 seconds and he’s not at all impartial here. The way she set this all up reminds me of the test she gave Jason, and Michael is already failing just like Jason did bc he couldn’t opt out of “playing” due to lack of impulse control and a massive personal bias regarding his favorite team, the Cockroaches. idk what this will mean long-term but I think he’s gonna be in a lot of trouble soon.

speaking of Jason and Michael: theirs is my favorite (sort of bonding) scene, hands down. Again, it reminded me of an early S2 moment when Jason stumbles on a brooding, lost Michael and tells him a dope story about his 60-person dance crew that unexpectedly inspires Michael to seek out Eleanor & Co. The situations are reversed here but it’s an excellent parallel, esp when you compare the two scenes and see the development in both characters and their relationship. Jason is a bit   more grounded and Michael is less dismissive and much kinder to him now. I also love Jason’s continued immunity to Michael’s b.s. It’s different from Eleanor’s (his is stupid-based and hers is about being smartbrained) but it works and pushes Michael to just level w/ him and the second he does, Jason becomes instantly receptive. It’s just a really really great character moment that also moves the plot, so it’s basically perfect. Also I think this is the moment when Michael is temporarily pulled from his puppet master mode due to being near one of his human friends again, and his other side peeks out as he lets himself rest a bit - it’s in his body language, too, as he leans back against the bridge railing and has a semi-honest chat w/ Jason.

Michael’s disguises are an eternal source of happiness to me. All of them (and based on promo pics, more is coming). I also love the way he approaches each human bc it is reminiscent of how he steered them during the reboots: to Eleanor he gave a small clue and just let her chew on it and work w/ it. W/ Chidi, he was more direct, posing as a wise helper/guide. W/ Tahani, he targeted her sense of self-worth. W/ Jason, he gave up after 5 seconds and just told him what he wanted him to do.

I doubt his aliases raised many eyebrows, tho, not in a universe where Simone has colleagues called Mrelk and Catapulp :D but Eleanor seemed to have a bit of a “hmm” reaction to the name of Dr. Charles Brainman, so… we’ll see.

Dr. Simone Garnett had probably the smoothest entry into an established character group, imo. I’m usually sensitive to changes like this but it’s like she’s always been here - another excellent casting choice right there. I am not gonna touch shipping issues, thank you, but I love how Simone’s presence, which is a lot of fun in itself, instantly enriched the landscape of relationship dynamics regarding the present, the future and also the past. I feel that every character combination exists somewhere in canon whether it’s explicitly on screen or not, and that’s just an incredibly freeing, resourceful attitude to have on a show w/ this sort of “multiverse” setup, imo. They have the premise, so why not milk its full potential? The writers use relationships as tools to aid character development, they have admitted as much already, and I am looking forward to seeing what other combos they have in mind and how they play out.

despite his limited screen time and despite him spending most of it being flat and emotionless, frog guy aka The Doorman managed to deliver the biggest punch in my heart w/ that reaction to Michael’s gift. I.crumbled. the way his flatness did when he saw the frog on the mug. Thank you, Mike O'Malley.

It’s probably a good thing that they are becoming buddies now bc w/ evil Trevor in the mix, Michael’s gonna turn that Earth entrance into a revolving door. Unless Judge Gen is onto him and steps in at some point. And I still don’t know how he will interact w/ the team now since they’ve all met him already and he was posing as a different person each time. And given his track record, whatever solution he comes up with, Eleanor will see right through him eventually anyway.

ok this is way too long already, so I’m just gonna say that I am very excited for this season, I love the new setup, I miss the fake Good Place but the university environment is growing on me fast, too, and just bring it, show, ok?

my body is ready

[autumndiesirae]

Response to @bigmeangatekeeper’s ‘Why I’m Exclusionist’ Page

So recently I came across by far one of the most bigoted exclusionists I’ve seen in a while, that being @bigmeangatekeeper. Normally I block and ignore these sorts of people but given the exceedingly harmful and frankly disgusting rhetoric espoused on this person’s blog, I felt it was necessary to make a formal response, even if the person in question isn’t going to listen to reason or care.

I’m going to be mentioning @herefortheace​ and @justaphobethings​ in this post for their reference, as the arguments presented here are common exclusionist rhetorics and also to share my resources with more inclusionist blogs.

DISCLAIMER: This is not intended to be a ‘callout’, not is it intended to call upon my followers/anyone to attack this blog. This is merely a response to tired old exclusionist rhetoric by an asexual who is sick of people legitimately trying to act like their gross views haven’t been time and time disproven. I also won’t be addressing this blog’s status as a truscum as that isn’t relevant to this post.

TW FOR RAPE/SEXUAL ASSAULT DISCUSSION AND RAPE APOLOGISM.

PAGE LINK

First thing’s first. While I do not automatically exclude LGBT aces, I exclude cishet aces AND homo/transphobic or homo/transphobia apologist aces. It’s not just about the cishets. It’s about so much more.

As stated hundreds of times before, there definitely are homophobic, biphobic, transphobic, sexist, and racist asexuals. There are also apologists for these asexuals. Absolutely no one is arguing that these are problematic people. However, exclusionists like to pretend that the occasional ‘bad’ asexual is somehow a representative of the entire community, to which I respond ‘how then do you feel about TERF lesbians or biphobic gay men?’ Because if a few bad members of a sexuality are enough to warrant that entire community being removed from the LGBT community as a whole, then this rhetoric should be applied to every single sexual orientation or gender identity. Yet, asexuals and aromantics get singled out for this time and time again. It’s almost like exclusionists are unwilling to admit that they just want to remove asexuals as a whole and are only grasping for excuses so much that they will use the occasional problematic ace as a gotcha to push forward their ideologies. It’s funny because half the time what exclusionists define as ‘homophobic asexuals’ are often either blatantly obvious trolls or minors simply making jokes or having fun with their identity.

Also, thank you for including SOME aces! We appreciate you soooo much for driving a wall between our community! /s

The standard of “SGA and trans” as requirement for entry to the LGBTQ community is used nowhere outside of aphobic tumblr, and it seems crafted specifically for the purpose of excluding aces, aros, NBs, intersex people, and others not deemed “gay enough”.

There are also many “SGA and trans” aces who are against the gatekeeping and feel that they are hated by these aphobes.

You’re not protecting me by being an ace/aro exclusionist.

What we hear when you say “I only support SGA Asexuals/Aromantics”

my favourite thing is when aphobes try to tell me that their aphobia doesn’t apply to me / affect me because “[i’m] queer for other reasons”

okay, you wanna know why I’m for including all aces in the LGBT+ community?

Why your acephobia and arophobia is really just bullshit

it really annoys me when I see Discoursers say they support LGBT+ aces, just not cishet ones.

when you say “i accept sga and trans aces and aros but not cishet aces/aros because they’re straight”

Suffering! Suffering?

when people ‘accept’ sga/mga/non-cis aces and aros, but not others, what it actually means is they accept the part of you that isn’t directly tied to your asexuality/aromanticism

if ur gonna fuckin claim those four letters cover them & the whole damn community, they sure as fuck can cover aces as well

“Ace discourse” is really a Tumblr-only thing

I’m a lesbian ace and I’ve never felt more worthless and disgusting than this ace discourse

The reason even trans and bi/gay/pan/etc asexuals get defensive when you talk about cishet aces/aros not being part of the LGBT+ community is because you’re erasing a part of our identity??

If you talk shit about aces/aros with the disclaimer “cishet” it still affects all aces. Saying “notably cishet aces should all go die” still makes all ace/aro people feel like they are being called out.

Your “discourse” is harmful to all asexuals. And PS, your rhetoric is literally indistinguishable from TWERF rhetoric.

It’s about the blatant homophobia, transphobia, and serophobia in the ace community.

Again, this may exist in some members of the community, but that does not magically erase the status of the community as being LGBT. If it did, TERFs lesbians would have caused the lesbian community to be no longer considered LGBT.

It’s about there being no consistent definition of asexuality, thus allowing literally anyone regardless of relationship status, libido, etc to claim the ace label, and thereby try to shoulder their way into the LGBT community.

There is a consistent definition of asexuality. It’s ‘a lack of sexual attraction’. Libido, relationship status, etc, do not have any role in the asexual label. This has been the definition of asexuality for years. Looking up ‘asexuality’ on Google literally explains this:

I found these in one quick search. What’s your excuse?

The reason there appears to be ‘no consistent definition’ is the fault of non-asexuals and exclusionists pushing their own definitions of what asexuality is so that they can later pretend that its the asexuals who are changing the definition. The idea that asexuals never have sex was a misconstruing of the description of sex-repulsed asexuals. The idea that asexuals don’t have a libido also came from this. Asexuals can and do masturbate (for pleasure or stress relief), have sex (for pleasure or to have children), etc. These are not related to the definition of asexuality.

Additionally, if the fact that there isn’t a consistent definition of asexuality bothers you, then why not address how bisexuals and pansexuals don’t always have a consistent definition for their sexuality either? Some bisexuals claim the bi label is only for men and women, some say it includes nonbinary people, some say bisexuality is a transphobic label compared to pansexuality, etc, etc.

It’s about asexuals telling traumatised people/mentally ill people/dysphoric people/autistic people/CHILDREN that they’re ace rather then encouraging them to consider other reasons why they might feel sex repulsed.

Telling an individual ‘have you considered you may be asexual’ is not the same that saying ‘you are asexual, no arguments, you just are’. A person suggesting a label is not forcing anyone to co-opt that label. In addition, sexualities are fluid. I know many people who identified as ace at a younger age and then identified differently at an older age. I know many people who are the reverse. Are there individuals who identified incorrectly as ace at one age and feel upset or angry about it? Absolutely. But that is not the fault of any asexual who suggested the label. And, again, sex repulsion is not the requirement for being asexual.

It’s about asexuals not understanding that asexuality is not comparable to other sexualities bc it’s about how you feel attraction instead of who you feel attraction to

“Human sexuality is the way people experience and express themselves sexually. This involves biological, erotic, physical, emotional, social, or spiritual feelings and behaviors. Because it is a broad term, which has varied over time, it lacks a precise definition.” From Wikipedia

A Definition of Sexuality

Sexuality is no longer just about ‘who’ you experience attraction to.

It’s about asexuals hypersexualising all other sexualities (most particularly gay people) and making us out to be fucking sex craved deviants

Citation fucking needed. Also, yet again, a few asexuals doing this (not that I have ever seen any aside from one extremely obvious troll doing this) is not somehow a representation of the entire community.

It’s about asexuals pushing the toxic and harmful split attraction model even though it’s been shown time and time again to allow people to explain away their internalised homophobia/biphobia, and encouraging microlabelling that just confuses people more and causes divisiveness in the community

What we call the split-attraction model was first described by Karl Heinrich Ulrichs, a gay advocate from the 1800s, as “disjunctive uranodioning”. (source) (credit to this post)

There is absolutely no evidence aside from exclusionist rhetoric to uphold the idea that the SAM is homophobic or toxic. Additionally the SAM is used by non-ace and non-aro people regularly - I am familiar with many people who make that distinction in their romantic and sexual orientations, such as one friend who is pansexual but heteroromantic (in that she will have sex with all genders but prefers to romantically date men). It seems your bigger issue is the existence of microlabelling, which while that is a debatable problem in this community, at the end of the day it really isn’t any of your business. The only real source of divisiveness in this community is gatekeepers like you.

It’s about asexuals erasing gay history and literally just fabricating false stories for asexual representation, usually at the expense of gay people

Citation needed, once again.

Asexuals recorded as “Group X” in the 1948 Kinsey Reports

What is asexual history? The 19th and 20th century

From The Westminster Review, a political magazine, in 1907; an essay by Helen Fraser called Women’s Suffrage, on how if women got the vote, butch and ace women were gonna dominate the whole thing and screw it up for all the Real Ladies.

The Spinster Movement, and how they were treated as queer

From “Feminism,” by Correa Moylan Walsh, 1917

the “aces/aros were part of the bi community until they very recently chose to split off, so stop telling them that they have never been queer or that they don’t belong in ‘the LGBT community’” masterpost

asexuality existed before David Jay and AVEN

“Where were you when…?” A History of Asexual Inclusion (Part One)

“Where were you when…?” A History of Asexual Inclusion (Part Two)

It’s about asexuals stealing autistic terminology, and creating false axes of oppression that make literally everyone who isn’t ace their oppressors

The ‘actuallyasexual’ tag supposedly being stolen from the ‘actuallyautistic’ tag was never proven to be a legitimate claim. Autistic people have repeatedly come forward saying that this was never the case. Since I am not autistic, however, I won’t press on this particular point. If anyone is autistic and has some information on this, please DM me.

It’s about adult asexuals literally acting like children and using the ‘uwu im a pure ace’ response

Citation needed. I’m sensing a trend here.

Any asexual who partakes in, excuses, or explains away this behaviour in the ace community is dangerous and could easily cause harm to the LGBT community.

Once again - TERF lesbians, transphobic gay man, etc. should also be included under this rhetoric if you’re going to treat asexuals this way, otherwise you’re just being a hypocrite.

Asexuals are not oppressed under homophobia or transphobia. The LGBT community was not built just to combat oppression, because that would mean women and POC would automatically be LGBT, which is absurd. The community was developed specifically so that SGA and non-cis people would have a place to get away from societal homophobia and transphobia, and to push back against legally instituted oppression, like fighting for gay marriage, and to get laws put in place that protect us from hate crimes.

Firstly, SGA (same-gender attraction) is a term that was used and is still used in Mormon conversion therapy, so as one can understand,a lot of people are very uncomfortable being labeled with this description. 

Secondly -

“The LGBT community has always been about fighting homophobia and transphobia/we came together to fight homophobia and transphobia”

“Homophobia and Transphobia”: What does the LGBT+ community fight for?

The modern American movement was first known as the “gay community” when cis gay men refused to even accept lesbians, then the “gay and lesbian community”. (Good reading on the subject.)

“After the elation of change following group action in the Stonewall riots in New York, in the late 1970s and the early 1980s, some gays and lesbians became less accepting of bisexual or transgender people. Critics said that transgender people were acting out stereotypes and bisexuals were simply gay men or lesbian women who were afraid to come out and be honest about their identity. Each community has struggled to develop its own identity including whether, and how, to align with other gender and sexuality-based communities, at times excluding other subgroups; these conflicts continue to this day.” (source)

“From about 1988, activists began to use the initialism LGBT in the United States. Not until the 1990s within the movement did gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people gain equal respect.” (ibid)

These are scans of a gay magazine from 1999 showing that 48% of those surveyed did not believe that trans people should be a part of the gay community.

The community’s boundaries have always been in flux

Insisting that LG people have always been accepting of bi and trans people is incredibly revisionist and does a great deal of injustice to those who have been excluded.

While I agree that asexuals go through some discrimination, ‘aphobia’ is not an axis of oppression because it is not institutionalised. The discrimination asexual and aromantic people face is based within rape culture, toxic masculinity, traditionalist values, and misogyny.

You sound like transphobic sexists who claim trans men do not experience transphobia that is specific to trans men (transmisandry) much in the same way that trans women experience transphobia specific to trans women (transmisogyny).

First of all, what do you use as the definition of ‘institutionalized’?

Second, why are you acting like asexuals are seen as some ‘other’ group rather than a part of the LGBT community when institutionalized discrimination is being discussed?

Third, ‘institutionalized discrimination’ was never a requirement to be LGBT. By that logic, a gay man who lives in a country/state where gay marriage is legal, conversion therapy is banned, and who has never experienced any form of anti-LGBT discrimination in his life is straight. That’s an asinine proposition.

For some examples of asexual-specific discrimination - 

“My parents keep telling me that I’m something else, and it’s making me doubt my sense of judgement, not just about my sexual identity, but also about everything in general.”

“My family, friends, and co-workers keep referring to me as an inanimate object in a manner that’s clearly meant to humiliate and devastate me. Nothing I say will get them to stop.”

“My parents vocally/bodily forced me to undergo medical examinations, some of them concerning my sexual organs, many of them concerning blood tests and other trauma-centric procedures.”

“My family is intervening with my private life by changing my schedule to include exercise, socialization, friend influences, and whatever they think can ‘change’ me.”

“My friends/co-workers no longer respect my bodily boundaries when I came out to them, because they no longer see me as someone who should be respected. They regularly touch, fondle, grope, and prod me without permission, and/or verbally harass me, and don’t take my objections seriously.”

“My family, friends, and co-workers no longer just harass me, but also anyone I’m currently dating because they view my significant other as pathetic, underserved, or even being abused.”

“My date got irrationally angry and confrontational when I came out to them, in a manner that made me fearful.” (SO many of these.)

“My date immediately lost any respect they had for my boundaries, no longer asked for consent, and {tried to} force themselves upon me.” (A lot of these, too)

“My date tried to verbally circumvent any boundaries and issues I confessed to, and it made me feel like I was in danger.”

“I didn’t come out to my date at first, and when they found out, they radically changed their behavior in an attempt to control and manipulate our new relationship to their benefit.”

“My partner has forcefully and radically changed our long-term relationship after finding out about my asexuality, and I’m now trapped and controlled in a way that I wasn’t before.”

“My partner broke up with me/is fighting with me because of my asexuality, and trying to make it seem like I’m hurting them. It’s made me doubt myself and my ability to trust my own intentions.”

“My partner is slowly changing from what was once supportive of my asexuality, and I’m wondering when I have the right to be worried and when I’d be overreacting. I’m aware of the worst case scenario, but I also worry that I’m being selfish and childish - which are things I’ve been told all throughout my asexual experience.”

“I don’t trust my ability to say either yes or no in sexual situations, and this has extended to my life in general. I don’t feel comfortable in my ability to self-determinate.”

“The lack of authority, definition, and schooling of the concept of asexuality has made me very uncomfortable with what I think I am, and that uncertainty haunts me every waking moment.”

“I think it’s too late/too early to tell if I’m asexual, but the longer I hesitate, the worse my mental health and emotional wellbeing gets. I’m effectively stuck.”

“I see no benefit in coming out, or even identifying as asexual. There’s no positivity, role models, or supportive community for what I consider a big and scary part of my overall identity.”

“I think this was sexual abuse, but I’m wondering if I’m just being selfishand childish.”

“I think I was treated badly by my parents/friends/partner, but I’m wondering if I’m just being selfishand childish.”

“I want to believe that I’m deserving of equal freedom and human respect paid to other, not asexual people, but people tell me I’m being selfishand childish.”

“No one encourages this part of me. And that makes me feel forgotten and abandoned in general.”

Dr Gordon Hodson wrote this about his 2012 study:

In a recent investigation (MacInnis & Hodson, in press) we uncovered strikingly strong bias against asexuals in both university and community samples. Relative to heterosexuals, and even relative to homosexuals and bisexuals, heterosexuals: (a) expressed more negative attitudes toward asexuals (i.e., prejudice); (b) desired less contact with asexuals; and © were less willing to rent an apartment to (or hire) an asexual applicant (i.e., discrimination). Moreover, of all the sexual minority groups studied, asexuals were the most dehumanized (i.e., represented as “less human”). Intriguingly, heterosexuals dehumanized asexuals in two ways. Given their lack of sexual interest, widely considered a universal interest, it might not surprise you to learn that asexuals were characterized as “machine-like” (i.e., mechanistically dehumanized). But, oddly enough, asexuals were also seen as “animal-like” (i.e., animalistically dehumanized). Yes, asexuals were seen as relatively cold and emotionless and unrestrained, impulsive, and less sophisticated.

When you repeatedly observe such findings it grabs your attention as a prejudice researcher. But let’s go back a minute and consider those discrimination effects. Really? You’d not rent an apartment to an asexual man, or hire an asexual woman? Even if you relied on stereotypes alone, presumably such people would make ideal tenants and employees. We pondered whether this bias actually represents bias against single people, a recently uncovered and very real bias in its own right (see Psychology Today column by Bella DePaulo). But our statistical analyses ruled out this this possibility. So what’s going on here?

If you’ve been following my column, you’ll recall that I wrote a recent article on what I called the “Bigotry Bigot-Tree” – what psychologists refer to as generalized prejudice. Specifically, those disliking one social group (e.g., women) also tend to dislike other social groups (e.g., homosexuals; Asians). In our recent paper (MacInnis & Hodson, in press), we found that those who disliked homosexuals also disliked bisexuals and asexuals. In other words, these prejudices are correlated. Heterosexuals who dislike one sexual minority, therefore, also dislike other sexual minorities, even though some of these groups are characterized by their sexual interest and activity and others by their lack of sexual interest and activity.

This anti-asexual bias, at its core, seems to boil down to what Herek (2010) refers to as the “differences as deficit” model of sexual orientation. By deviating from the typical, average, or normal sexual interests, sexual minorities are considered substandard and thus easy targets for disdain and prejudice. Contrary to conventional folk wisdom, prejudice against sexual minorities may not therefore have much to do with sexual activity at all. There is even evidence, for instance, that religious fundamentalists are prejudiced against homosexuals even when they are celibate (Fulton et al., 1999). Together, such findings point to a bias against “others”, especially different others, who are seen as substandard and deficient (and literally “less human”). “Group X” is targeted for its lack of sexual interest even more than homosexuals and bisexuals are targeted for their same-sex interests.

From news coverage of a recently published study (2016):

What should the average person take away from your study?

Since I first became interested in the issue, I have come to conclude that U.S. society is both “sex negative” and “sex positive.” In other words, there is stigma and marginalization that can come both from being “too sexual” and from being “not sexual enough.” In a theoretical paper, I argued that sexuality may be compulsory in contemporary U.S. society. In other words, our society assumes that (almost) everyone is, at their core, “sexual” and there exists a great deal of social pressure to experience sexual desire, engage in sexual activities, and adopt a sexual identity. At the same time, various types of “non-sexuality” (such as a lack of sexual desire or activity) are stigmatized.

For this particular study, I identified thirty individuals who identified as asexual and asked them first, if they had experienced stigma or marginalization as a result of their asexuality, and, second how they challenged this stigma or marginalization. I found that my interviewees had experienced the following forms of marginalization: pathologization (i.e. people calling them sick), social isolation, unwanted sex and relationship conflict, and the denial of epistemic authority (i.e. people not believing that they didn’t experience sexual attraction). I also found that my interviews resisted stigma and marginalization in five ways: describing asexuality as simply a different (but not inherently worse) form of sexuality; deemphasizing the importance of sexuality in human life; developing new types of nonsexual relationships; coming to see asexuality as a sexual orientation or identity; and engaging in community building and outreach.

I hope that average people would take away from this study the idea that some people can lead fulfilling lives without experiencing sexual attraction but can experience distress if others try to invalidate their identities.

Some of the social isolation we aspecs experience comes from religious communities. Indeed, the popular myth that religious people revere aspecs is very much NOT TRUE. For example, read “Myth 8″ from the VISION Catholic Religious Vocation Guide:

MYTH 8: Religious are asexual

Question: What do you call a person who is asexual?

Answer: Not a person. Asexual people do not exist.Sexuality is a gift from God and thus a fundamental part of our human identity. Those who repress their sexuality are not living as God created them to be: fully alive and well. As such, they’re most likely unhappy. All people are called by God to live chastely, meaning being respectful of the gift of their sexuality. Religious men and women vow celibate chastity, which means they live out their sexuality without engaging in sexual behavior. A vow of chastity does not mean one represses his manhood or her womanhood. Sexuality and the act of sex are two very different things. While people in religious life abstain from the act of sex, they do not become asexual beings, but rather need to be in touch with what it means to be a man or a woman. A vow of chastity also does not mean one will not have close, loving relationships with women and men. In fact, such relationships are a sign of living the vow in a healthy way. Living a religious vow of chastity is not always easy, but it can be a very beautiful expression of love for God and others. Religious women and men aren’t oddities; they mirror the rest of the church they serve: there are introverts and extroverts, tall and short, old and young, straight and gay, obese and skinny, crass and pious, humorous and serious, and everything in between. They attempt to live the same primary vocation as all other Christians do: proclaiming and living the gospel. However, religious do this as members of an order that serve the church and world in a particular way. Like marriage and the single life, religious life can be wonderful, fulfilling, exciting, and, yes, normal. Yet, it also can be countercultural and positively challenging. It’s that for us and many others. If you thought religious life was outdated, dysfunctional, or dead, we hope you can now look beyond the stereotypes and see the gift it is to the church and world.

NOTE: YOU CAN BE A GAY CATHOLIC PERSON BUT NOT ASEXUAL, BC ASEXUALITY DOESN’T EXIST (yet somehow we’re also “most likely unhappy” and “oddities”). I sincerely hope and believe that not all religions characterize us aspecs this way. But here are some personal accounts I found on a reddit site answering the question “Do any religions have a negative stance toward asexuals?”:

Please note that the Christian pastor in the last example was fearful (or something?) that an asexual was helping to lead a youth group and kicked them out of the church as a result.

(Not to mention that there is now a published dissertation with a whole chapter dedicated to understanding why a-spec people have been erased from history and virtually invisible up until recently, which is a very real issue in this debate that cannot be ignored).

This argument is as tired as the rest of the ones you’re putting out. And since i know you’re just going to ignore this with some backhanded commentary - 

If we give primary sources based on lived experiences (which is the basis of qualitative research, which founded so much of the fields of psychology, sociology, anthropology, and more, and is still used today as a very common research practice), such evidence is dismissed because it’s not academic or in a news publication. Never mind that this practice of citing tumblr blogs for personal experiences is similar in practice (if not as rigorous) as netnographic research (a practice developed by Rob Kozinets, whose book on it has close to 1500 google scholar citations, and whose seminal article on it has over 2000).

If we give articles from press outlets, they are dismissed as commercial and therefore not acceptable. (I could find a lot more of this, but look, it’s happened a lot and not main point here).

If we give academic citations, such as the study that was published a few years ago (what I’ve seen referred to as’ the Group X study’ by discoursers), they are dismissed (read, not ‘debunked’ because that is a different thing) because popular press such as psychologytoday.com dared to cover the story, or because they don’t believe the need for such study exists, and because someone hadn’t read the original research so felt free to critique it’s methods (????).  Slightly more legitimately, I’ve seen it dismissed based on the use of convenience samples (though I can’t find the link), but it’s worth pointing out that the actual research also used a sample drawn from the general public. And if you’re dismissing a study based on the use of a convenience sample, you can also throw out about 90% of academic research done in psychology and related fields in the past 40 years. Almost all research uses convenience sampling, and this study actually went beyond that anyway.

(For the record, that study also goes a long way to explain why intra-community aphobia exists, if you read the full article, and finds that the more biased people are also more right-wing authoritarian and endorse social-dominance orientation, basically meaning they “endorse dominance and inter-group hierarchies”).

Source with more information

Literally every argument for ace oppression, like corrective rape for example, is not ace exclusive. On the other hand, gay and trans people face specific pointed prosecution for being non-cis or SGA.

“The term ‘corrective rape’ was coined by South African lesbians and should only be used by lesbians”

No one means any disrespect to lesbians or other victims of corrective rape, but this is not a correct statement.

“We’ll Show You You’re a Woman” describes the violence directed towards LGBT people in South Africa, stating, “Negative public attitudes towards homosexuality go hand in hand with a broader pattern of discrimination, violence, hatred, and extreme prejudice against people known or assumed to be lesbian, gay, and transgender, or those who violate gender and sexual norms in appearance or conduct (such as women playing soccer, dressing in a masculine manner, and refusing to date men).” It goes on to say, “Much of the recent media coverage of violence against lesbians and transgender men has been characterized by a focus on “corrective rape,” a phenomenon in which men rape people they presume or know to be lesbians in order to “convert” them to heterosexuality.”

The Wikipedia article on corrective rape in South Africa states that, “A study conducted by OUT LGBT Well-being and the University of South Africa Centre for Applied Psychology (UCAP) showed that “the percentage of black gay men who said they have experienced corrective rape matched that of the black lesbians who partook in the study”.”

It is not only lesbians, but also bisexual women, transgender men, gay men, and gender non-conforming people in South Africa who experience corrective rape. This is not in any way meant to minimize the horror of the epidemic or shift attention away from lesbians, but other victims, including asexuals, deserve attention as well. Do not silence or speak over victims of rape by policing their language.

And regarding ace-specific discrimination, I provided a wall of it, if you’d like to scroll up and read it again.

I’ve been beaten bloody while called a fag and a tranny and left for dead. I’ve had a guy rape me while aggressively misgendering me and telling me what a freak cuntboy I was. Those attacks were specifically because I’m trans and gay. Ace people are attacked because they won’t have sex, not because they’re ace. It’s just good old fashioned rape, there’s no hate crime element I guarantee it.

I’m very sorry that happened to you.

I was repeatedly molested by my first boyfriend because he told me that “wouldn’t be ace anymore when he was done with me”. I’ve been punched, thrown to the ground, and had my nose broken because I wore an asexual flag pin on my backpack, with people calling me a disgusting queer. My girlfriend of five years, the person I intended to marry, cheated on me with a mutual friend because I was asexual and ‘didn’t validate her body’. And, as I already shown, my experiences are commonplace for asexuals. Your trauma, as horrible as it is, does not give you any right to say that an asexual who is raped and told “I’ll fix you” is not ‘good old fashioned rape’.

Please read this and tell me about how there’s no hate crime element to it:

“‘I just want to help you,’ he called out to me as I walked away from his car,” she explained. “He was basically saying that I was somehow broken and that he could repair me with his tongue and, theoretically, with his penis. It was totally frustrating and quite scary.”

Sexual harassment and violence, including so-called “corrective” rape, is disturbingly common in the ace community, says Decker, who has received death threats and has been told by several online commenters that she just needs a “good raping.”

“When people hear that you’re asexual, some take that as a challenge,” said Decker, who is currently working on a book about asexuality. “We are perceived as not being fully human because sexual attraction and sexual relationships are seen as something alive, healthy people do. They think that you really want sex but just don’t know it yet. For people who perform corrective rape, they believe that they’re just waking us up and that we’ll thank them for it later.”

“There is a real fear even among the asexual community that people who identify as anything other than heterosexual will be harassed and assaulted,” wrote “Angela,” a self-identified aromantic ace. “They have a reason to be upset and a reason to be afraid, it has happened to many people before.”

In response to the post, an anonymous user wrote, “[A]sexuality is not a thing. You are just ugly and no one wanted to date you, so you made up a thing to cuddle your lonely self as you cry into your pillow. Also, I hope you get raped. It has a dual benefit, you’ll get laid finally AND put you into your place as well.”

The comment triggered a firestorm, with some asexuals speaking out and sharing their own experiences involving sexual violence.

Asexuals and ace activists say the conversation about sexual assault in the asexual community is part of the wider societal discussion about rape culture generally and about corrective rape in the queer community specifically. They also say it speaks to a bias and an invisibility that asexuals face in everyday life.

Source

Asexuals and aromantics are notoriously homophobic, transphobic, and serophobic in their arguments. I personally have seen them say things about inclusionists like ‘I hope they get antibiotic resistant gonorrhoea and crabs in the same week’ (actual quote), I’ve been told ‘you probably have aids’ because I’m a gay man, I’ve seen them argue that non-ace people can’t be raped because we constantly want sex and have had my own assaults denied, etc. This wasn’t just one incident, it’s a pattern. Over and over ace people wish violent sexual threats on non-ace people. They call us disgusting. They call us filthy. They call us ‘the oppressive monogays’ and ‘filthy allos’. I’ve had them go so far as to fling homophobic slurs at me, and say we deserved the aids crisis. Sorry, but any group that is totally fine with even some of its members being that actively, unabashedly homophobic has absolutely no place in this community. I wouldn’t let my grandfather who called me a pathetic fag into the community either, no matter how much sex he did or didn’t have.

I like how you say ‘actual quote’ and yet do not provide a single link, screenshot, or even falsified anonymous message as proof of this.

For the 100th time - the behavior of a few asexuals does not represent the entire community, otherwise TERF lesbians, transphobic gay men, biphobic trans people, etc, would mean their entire community are no longer considered LGBT.

Would you like a glimpse at some of the behavior exclusionists that are ‘real LGBT’ bestow on asexuals?

Comparing aces and aros to Trump  (and pretending this is funny)

Comparing aces to Pence  

Comparing aces to Ronald Reagan (and pretending this is funny)

Comparing aces to a literal slave owner

Making fun of aces not being accepted by their parents and of aces finding this upsetting (making it into a crytyping “joke”)

Making aces feel shitty/shaming them for telling their parents they’re ace because it’s supposedly “unnecessary”

Saying if we tell family about being ace, it’s no wonder if they send us to therapy

Doing their best to sexualize the orientations of aces, in so many cases. The link before these two is also connected to that. They treat our orientations like (graphic) details about “our sex lives”, frequently acting like if we want to talk about them ever we’re gross/creepy

This one is also “nice” re sexualizing aces (one of many examples of ppl also engaging in sex-shaming while they’re at it, saying only one’s partner should know anything about one’s “relationships with sex”. Except this person goes kinda even further)

More sexualization, when I say this freaks me out as a WoC, I’m told this white person gives no fucks and wants me to be miserable

Another person who says the identities of aces but also of aros need to stay between them and their Partners because they’re “TMI” and inherently sex-shaming somehow

Oh yeah did I mention, much the same with sexualizing aros and ppl frequently link our identities to misogyny and to using people while they’re at it

Making light and fun of ace WoC asking to not be sexualized because don’t we know aces have done Bad things and so we deserve it/don’t get to complain

One of many examples of white people who hate aces+aros talking over PoC and trying to erase us from our communities (+usually when we call that shit out they don’t care. This is actually one of the more cordial responses I’ve come across despite the lack of apology lol. [Eta: my wording here was misleading before, they weren’t talking to me - I’d also called them on this but they ignored me. Sorry for the confusion!] Also, I have a tag somewhere with several non-black/white ppl who made Rachel Dolezal comparisons to shit on aces/aros). Another example of talking over us here complete with condescendingly lecturing a PoC about racism

People like this saying outright they hate aces

Saying sex ed shouldn’t teach about asexuality

Outright stating they think being ace/aro gives people privilege (because supposedly aces+aros both benefit from conservatives pushing for abstinence)

Outright invalidating the identities of aces (who don’t have the attitude towards sex they think they should have)

Calling asexuals demons

Outright calling aces and aros a “plague” and saying aces/aros regardless of other identities all need to be kicked out of the LGBT+ community.

Erasing the identities of people who speak out against anti-ace/aro shit to declare them “straight” or “cishet” …or saying that treatment is what they get for being “traitors to their own community”

Ignoring the boundaries of aces/aros who have them blocked and don’t want to be vagued to make fun of them …

…or even to continue sexualizing them after they have made it very clear that shit freaks them out (cheerfully doing this to a WoC)

Someone saying asexuality does not exist and “encourages slut shaming”

Spamming the ace positivity tag with vile hate (ppl have talked a lot about how this harms and endangers especially mentally ill ppl)

“aces are embarassing“ in the positivity tag

Posting nsfw content in the ace positivity tag and being completely unapologetic, apparently using the reasoning that our identities are inherently nsfw anyway (see the “TMI discourse” aka people sexualizing our identities)

Calling aces and aros a “sexuality fandom” while pretending we’re a group full of people with every privilege imaginable, bored of being accepted by everyone and of having no Actual Problems in our lives. This kind of nasty erasure constantly goes on and is a big tactic in this mess tbh

Wanting aces to be “exterminated”. For good measure putting this in the ace positivity tag

This disgusting vile shit that I don’t even know how to sum up but it includes wishing death on someone

Talking about wanting aces/aros dead after somehow misunderstanding(?) a post that was very clearly not about asexuality or aromanticism

Graphically telling aces to die

Specifically telling ace kids to kill themselves

Did I mention that many people in this mess have wished death on aces and aros and that they often put it in positivity tags. Some of the most messed up shit I’ve seen is missing because I didn’t reblog/respond to it at the time or can’t find it right now

And I know anons don’t count as hard “proof” for anything but have the less graphic one of the death/rape threats I got in my inbox for speaking out against anti-ace/aro shit (still kinda eerily detailed though. Not linking the other one because it is extremely graphic)

Comparing aces to a literal white supremacist (in the positivity tag)

Again someone invalidating the identities of aces who don’t have the attitude towards sex they think they should have

Sexualizing aros again, not caring about how it affects particularly aro PoC. And here two other ppl sexualizing and demonizing aros, like in posts further above claiming (non-ace) aros just use people for sex (said on positivity post).

Someone sexualizing aces again and engaging in sex-shaming at the same time, as usual with the claim that literally no one but a partner “needs” to know our orientations

Those Rachel Dolezal comparisons I mentioned made by non-black/white people who want to use antiblackness for what they call “ace discourse”?Yeah here is one white person doing it and here is another, even worse example where a white person goes “this is like if I pulled a Rachel D. and put on blackface and used the n-word…” (paraphrasing here). Here is the latter person utterly dismissing me being upset by their antiblackness (because black ppl’s pain only matters when it’s useful)

[For ppl who don’t know: Rachel Dolezal is a white woman who pretended to be black and built her career on it. White people sure as hell do not get to compare this shit to anything that is not antiblackness and use black people’s pain for their own purposes.]

A white person using antiblackness as a weapon against aces and aros in general (aka “ace tumblr”), acting smug regarding how supposedly we’re all so racist and “get triggered” by black people existing. (I am so tired of white ppl using racism as a cheap “gotcha” against aces and aros - groups which include PoC. And who then ignore or belittle PoC who call them out)

White person randomly informing WoC aces/aros can have white privilege

Again someone claiming ace privilege exists and here another person doing it adding to the post further above, claiming aces/aros have privilege for being ace/aro and that this is the case bc people who don’t have sex are privileged (wrong definition of asexuality… also of aromanticism??… and also no. No.)

What I mentioned about ppl telling us asexuality/aromanticism are not orientations but only ever modifiers? It’s happened a lot but here’s one example. And here’s someone outright saying aro aces don’t have an orientation but only modifiers.

Here’s the same person who said aro aces don’t have an orientation later turning around saying the orientation of aro aces is determined by how they behave and who they have sex with.

Another person putting nsfw shit in the ace positivity tag (link is to nsfw text)

And people try really hard to justify despising aces and aros by pointing to shitty people who share our identities/orientations. Honesty is secondary in this. Here you have someone taking a shitty post from an obvious nasty troll blog to say this is why ppl hate aces, and later when having the troll thing pointed out to them saying they already know. The post got over 3k notes.

“asexual shouldn’t even be a way people identify themselves”, with a second person in the thread agreeing

If you’re interested, some way back I also made a link-less post that is important to me talking about how nasty and harmful the racism and erasure of ace and aro PoC in all this has been

These are not even referring to more recent horrors that the exclusionist community has forced down our throats.

They don’t have a coherent definition of asexuality. Literally there’s no cohesive definition. None. Some of them say it’s people who feel no sexual attraction, some say it’s people who feel no sexual desire, some say you can have and enjoy sex and still be totally valid uwu, some say you can only have sex to please a partner, some say you have to be sex repulsed, the list goes on and fucking on. If we let in a group that has a definition that’s this fucking loose, we are opening the door for literally anyone to shoulder their way into this community.

I’ve already addressed this. There is a consistent definition. One Google search gets you that definition.

And even if there wasn’t, or if certain people reframe the definition to better mesh with their own personal experiences, why are you not extending this same rude-ass rhetoric towards bisexuals and pansexuals who constantly argue over the definitions of bi- and pansexuality? Why are you not extending this towards cis lesbians who argue if trans women can or cannot be WLW? Why are you not extending this towards cis gay men who argue if trans men can or cannot by MLM?

No one is ‘shouldering’ their way into any community. The asexual community is already a part of the LGBT movement. They’re not leaving just because you make rude posts like this.

Almost every single exclusionist I’ve spoken to has thought at some time or another that they were ‘demisexual’ or ‘grey-ace’ or some other bullshit ‘aspec’ term.

Exclusionists who do identified or have identified as asexual are not some sort of ‘gotcha’ for how the asexual community is bad. Once again, ace people expressing their experiences and suggesting to someone ‘you might be ace’ are not somehow homophobic or forcing people to be LGBT any more than the people in my life who told me I may be trans or agender were transphobic or forcing me to be trans or agender. If someone no longer identifies as asexual because of any given reason, that isn’t the fault of the asexual community for expressing that the option exists.

Have you ever spoken to an asexual who first found out about the definition of asexuality? Let me share my experience - when I first discovered the definition of asexuality and realized ‘oh, that’s me’, I sobbed tears of joy and relief for hours. I spent ages pouring over asexuality resources and participating in forums and embracing my new identity. And my experience isn’t some one-off thing - if you look into asexuality forums and websites, this is something many of us experience. In a world so overcharged with sexuality and people constantly telling us ‘you’re broken’, ‘you’ll find the right person’, etc, etc, an allosexual will never ever know what it’s like to have this feeling of relief that an asexual experiences when they first find out that’s an option.

Asexuality isn’t a spectrum. You either want sex/feel attraction to some degree (non-ace) or you don’t (ace). You don’t need a label for not wanting to fuck strangers. In fact, most people don’t want to fuck strangers. Demisexual is the norm!

“Why is there no coherent/consistent definition of asexuality???”

“Here is my (wrong) definition of asexuality! If you disagree with it you’re a homophobe!”

And that’s why the ‘asexual community’ should never be allowed in bc it’s an excuse for cishet people who don’t like hookups to invade spaces that were specifically made to get away from cishets.

We’re already allowed in. The ace community isn’t some out-group trying to get into the LGBT community. We’re here, and we’re staying, even when whiny exclusionists like you try to make these gotcha-style posts. Asexuals aren’t cishets, no matter how much you cry about it.

“Straight” isn’t a sexual orientation, it’s a position of power.

A-Spec Identities are Not Secondary.

Invisibility is Not a Privilege.

“passing privilege” is not a real thing.

Straight-passing privilege: a myth

Bad arguments against allowing a-spec to identify as queer

Having your identity erased is not a privilege.

asexuality, like bisexuality, is deliberately misunderstood by out groups in order to exclude us.

ace/aro people don’t “only” experience attraction to the ‘opposite gender’ or any other. that’s the point. we also experience a lack of attraction, either romantically or sexually, and that lack of attraction is part of our identity.

Straight is not default.

How many straight people do you know that want to kill themselves because of their orientation?

The closet is not a privilege

On that point—you can absolutely be ace and cishet. First of all, you can be asexual, cisgender, and heteroromantic (or aromantic, cisgender, and heterosexual). That’s pretty obvious. If you can have gay ace people, you can have straight ones. But that’s not even the most important point.

Yes, you can be a ‘cishet ace’, in the contexts you described. The reason people despise being called ‘cishet ace’ is because it’s being referred to in the traditional ‘cishet’ context of ‘non-LGBT person’.  Some het aces identify as straight. Some het aces don’t identify as straight, they identify as asexual, and it’s not your place to label them against their will. There is no world in which aroaces, people who experience no attraction to anyone, are straight.

Let’s talk about the marginalised sexualities in the LGBT community. Prior to the introduction of the wholly unnecessary, toxic, and damaging split attraction model (I’ll get into that on my next point), homosexual meant homosexual and homoromantic. The sexual suffix designated the sex of people you’re attracted to. Homo meaning same, thus, same sex attraction, because that’s how Latin works. Same for bi. Same for hetero, even. Asexual is the only one that attempts to redefine this system. It should mean a- (meaning none, or lack of), therefor attraction to no sexes. It’s pretty simple. But the pure aceys saw the sexual suffix and immediately thought ‘oh that means fucking right?’ And decided they had to change shit.

Once again, citation needed. Stop trying to redefine asexuality and speak on behalf of asexuals. Asexuality IS ‘attraction to no sexes’. You’re so desperate for material that you’re pulling shit out of your ass to pin on ace people.

The split attraction model is massively harmful. It encourages internalised homophobia and compulsive heterosexuality. My gay ass for AGES was like ‘I’m grey-ace homosexual biromantic uwu’ because I thought I couldn’t just be a filthy homo, I had to be special somehow, I had to make myself available to women in some way even if it wasn’t sexual availability. The SAM causes LOTS of developing LGBT kids to struggle with denying their own identities under the guise of embracing them through microlabelling. Among teenagers it’s almost like a damn contest, like who has the most obnoxious, convoluted label. It’s stupid and damaging.

Can you provide any non-tumblr sources about the SAM being problematic? Because I have only ever seen exclusionists on this hellsite trying to claim this. Additionally, your experiences are not universal, they are not a ‘gotcha!’ for the ace community, and they are not a valid argument. I spent 5+ years believing I may be transgender, before establishing I likely was not. I do not in any way blame the transgender community for making me think that way, because it was not the fault of any trans person for providing resources for me and supporting the possibility. Healthy exploration of one’s sexuality and gender is OKAY. It isn’t a bad thing, despite what exclusionists like to claim. If you identified one way for a while, and then no longer identify that way, that is HEALTHY EXPLORATION AND GROWTH, not internalized homo-/transphobia and not the fault of any asexual.

Also, the SAM is only commonly used amongst ace and aro people anyway, since it offers a chance for us to distinguish what kind of ace we are. If you can acknowledge that ‘cishet aces’ exist who are heteroromantic and asexual, then you shouldn’t have any issue realizing that biromantic, panromantic, homoromantic, etc aces also exist and may, you know, want to acknowledge that part of themselves? I am romantically interested in men and women - should I ignore the SAM and just call myself aro/ace anyway even when that isn’t an accurate description of who I am? Am I hurting myself by giving myself a more specific label?

Another serious topic I need to discuss: Ace advocates encouraging children and teens to identify as asexual. Literal children shouldn’t be experiencing sexual attraction. I’ve seen ace people telling a TWELVE YEAR OLD that she was asexual because she didn’t feel any interest in sex. She’s a child. Of course she didn’t. I was told when I was 14 that I was ace and I, being a vulnerable child, embraced the label and carried it til I was 17.

No one ‘encourages’ children and teens to identify as asexual, ESPECIALLY not children. Once again, someone saying ‘you might be ace’ is NOT forcing that label onto someone. YOUR EXPERIENCE IS NOT UNIVERSAL. YOUR HATRED FOR THE ASEXUAL COMMUNITY IS NOT A STANDARD.

I was 14 when I discovered asexuality. I was ruthlessly mocked in school for not having a boyfriend. Many people in my class were discussing how they had lost their virginity and the sexual endeavors they took part in. Yes, at FOURTEEN. 13+ year olds are not innocent children who do not experience any form of sexual attraction or libido. It is far more damaging for teenagers growing up to NOT know there is an option to be asexual and force themselves into dangerous and harmful sexual situations to ‘fit in’. The number of asexuals I know or have spoken to who were forced to have sex, send nude pictures of themselves, or otherwise been put in a sexual situation they didn’t want to be in, simply because they didn’t know that being asexual was a valid option that existed and thought they were broken, is immense. THAT is a unifying asexual experience that an allosexual will never understand.

The reason you can be too young to identify as asexual and not too young to identify as lesbian/gay/bi, is because LGB people experience attraction of ALL sorts to the gender(s) they are attracted to, and romantic attraction develops much earlier than sexual attraction (that’s why we have puppy love and not puppy lust). Asexuality as it is defined presently is purely about sexual attraction.

I thought you said there WAS no coherent asexuality definition? Can you at least try to have a coherent argument?

By your logic, 12 year olds who feel they are transgender and go on permanent body-changing hormone blockers/HRT that they may eventually regret are more valid than a 15 year old using the label of asexuality that they may eventually move away from without any damage. That is asinine.

Honestly it’s far more creepy that way exclusionists constantly talk about minors and sexuality. You guys are more obsessed with it than any asexual who suggests or acknowledges the existence of asexuality to someone.

Lastly, asexual and aromantic people absolutely deserve a sense of community, a sense of belonging. They absolutely need a place where they can interact with people who are like them! The problem is, LGBT people and ace/aro people don’t have that much in common. At all. We don’t face the same issues either. If LGBT people could make our community amidst serious legal and social ostracisation and oppression, without the help of the internet, ace/aro people can absolutely make their own community in the cyber age that is relevant to the issues they face so that they don’t talk over the serious topics the LGBT community discusses.

You cannot in one breath say “Asexuals are valid” and in the next deny their experiences. Spend five minutes in the community and you will see testimony after testimony from aces describing their abuse, their sexual assault(s), the countless times people have called them confused, broken, wrong, mentally ill, inhuman, sinful, and how these experiences have left them feeling hopeless, alone, alienated, subhuman, depressed, and suicidal. Almost every asexual out there will tell you a story of how their orientation has caused them pain and struggle, and you can’t call them valid while at the same time calling these experiences invalid and nonexistent.

Bonus: This is a list of all the mainstream LGBTQ groups that include asexuals.

Also, we do have our own community, because every letter in the acronym has its own community and yet is still part of the acronym, and yet you fucking shits won’t stop sending us hate and bombarding us with shit meant to trigger and harass us.

I genuinely don’t expect you to read or attempt to acknowledge any of this - that’s simply the way exclusionists are. However, you are wrong. You are not helping anyone by being an ace exclusionist. You are simply a vocal minority and a bigot - nothing more, nothing less. 

A full list of resources and information can be found HERE for further reading.

[blackwoolncrown]

I saw the Spock isn't Jewish thing and eyerolled so hard but it brings me to the problem preventing me from engaging with the modern (mostly male) scientific community. There's this idea that science and religion and logic and emotion can't coexist. A lot of great scientists were religious and emotional (Einstein comes to mind). And science can't be fully objective bc humans are not objective. Plus do they think our science is so advanced and absolute today that we can explain everything ever?

“Same Anon, additional point. Usually when I talk to white straight people (usually men) about this it's like talking to a brick wall. But I just have to mention the basics of the concept to most minorities and they will get it right away. The implications are pretty obvious here.”

So like, I don’t talk about this much bc it’d be very easy to misconstrue my sentiments, but I absolutely abhor the way our culture treats science, or alternatively, ‘science culture’. To get right to it I feel like ‘science’ as an intellectual approach has been co-opted by anti-intellectuals masquerading as intelligent people (usually men). It has become the cornerstone of arrogant atheists which is only frustrating because both the concept of science and how it is used, and also the way they interact with it, is completely comparable to any other belief system.

People seem to have gotten this idea that ‘science’ is the source of all correctness, of pure ‘rightness’ without taint of partiality, but that’s just not true and it never has been. From what gets funded to how its written about and thought about, science is always biased and influenced by the times. I am not saying that there’s no point or accuracy in the scientific method, but...

I digress. You’re right. And it’s obnoxious. People seem to think that if something cannot be measured by our current scientific means then it just isn’t real, doesn’t exist, and shouldn’t be talked about. The only explanation for why so many ~science fans~ are so apathetic and doggedly anti-spiritual is that they don’t know even half of what their role models did, and haven’t actually spent too much time reading up on them. Most likely, they probably avoid the more gnostic bent many historical scientist show bc by the time they dug their way to it, they had already loudly identified as a ~rational atheist~ and selection bias made sure they didn’t have to eat their words or worse- change their minds.

Given that the entire motivation for scientific pursuits is the admission that ‘I don’t know’, it’s hilarious how people these days are “if it hasn’t been discovered yet it never ever will be, and that’s finite.”As far as Spock being Jewish...He’s Jewish. And it’s awful that white cishets would balk at the idea. I had never seen the concept before it was mentioned in a Trek documentary but it made sense instantly. And even if I didn’t ‘get it’ as someone might not, what’s the point in refuting the evidence? Antisemitism is a helluva drug. It’s crazy how those people consume so many stories intended to be cautionary tales about oppression and the oppressors constantly ~don’t get it~....

[thebethbits]

non-western art: teotihuacan + nazca cultures.

For this assignment, I chose to research Teotihuacan and Nazca cultural art.

teotihuacan, a mesoamerican metropolis.

Teotihuacan culture was based in a city of the same name, homed in Central America, about 50 kilometers (30 miles) northeast of modern day Mexico City. It is the largest pre-Columbian site in the Americas, and was the largest city in the entirety of the Western Hemisphere before the 1400s. It thrived for the first half of the first millennium A.D. Based on our best evidence today, we believe Teotihuacan to have been established around 150 BCE, lasting to about the middle of the 6th century. Nearly 200,000 people lived in the city at its peak. (Wikipedia)

Teotihuacan is, for nearly all parts considered, a ghost story. The city, a sprawling grid of over 30 km² (over 11½ square miles), was already in ruins, abandoned for nearly a thousand years before the Aztecs came upon it. So much of the Teotihuacanos is unknown: “they had no form of writing, so much of their politics, culture, and religion were lost or co-opted by later civilizations.” (Vance) Archaeological excavations have led to some recent significant discoveries; it is believed that sometime in the 7th or 8th century, the city was heavily burnt, seemingly by invaders, but recent findings shows that the damage was focused towards the structures of the elite were burnt, which leans towards convincing evidence of an uprising, but is still just a theory. (Wikipedia)

teotihuacan, in its prime.

From what we can see, and by what has been found, Teotihuacan is believed to have been home to a wide, diverse set of cultures, including Zapotec, Mixtec, Maya and Nahua distinctions, but this is still heavily debated.

Chief Curator of the Fowler Museum at UCLA, Matthew Robb, was the exhibition curator for the exhibition Teotihuacan: City of Water, City of Fire, at the de Young museum in San Francisco, in late 2017. When asked about how the art and culture of Teotihuacan invited new, diverse variety to the city, he said: “Not very many people in ancient Mesoamerica woke up and lived their lives in an apartment compound covered with interior wall paintings, but a lot of people in Teotihuacan did. And that’s just the murals—many compounds had small domestic altars, and certain kinds of stone sculptures were pervasive across all social levels. It was a materially and visually rich environment—there are even reduced-scale versions of vessels and objects included in burials.” (Gardiner)

At the time, Teotihuacan was a Mesoamerican metropolis. In its prime, the city was a bustling aspirational utopia of culture: the cultural, political, economic, and religious epicenter of ancient Mesoamerica. It was home to a visually rich environment, in more ways than just art. Houses had courtyards and drains, goods came from all around the city: minerals from the north, shells from the coast, jade from the Maya region. There were ball games and gambling, religious worshipping temples, many different types of food, various entertainments, it all made for a comfortable life to start thinking about bigger ideas than just survival. Teotihuacan was a shot at a better life for many people. (Moran)

teotihuacan architecture.

A Map of Teotihuacan, de Young Museum. 

Architecturally, Teotihuacan contains a massive central road, thousands of residential compounds many pyramid-temples. We don’t know their true names, but we have those that the Aztecs gave them. The massive central road is known famously as the Street of the Dead, and the two main pyramid-temples are known as the Temple of the Sun and the Temple of the Moon. Even Teotihuacan is a given Aztec name, meaning "Place of the Gods”.

The grid layout of the city is incredibly organized and neat. The entire city is orientated 15.5 degrees East of true north. The main avenue, or the Street of the Dead, is massive, spanning 40 meters wide and 3.2 km long. (Teotihuacán) It spans from agricultural fields all the way towards the city’s main citadel, housing the pyramid-temple of the Sun, and culminating at the pyramid-temple of the Moon.

Temple of the Feathered Serpent, displaying "Tlaloc" (left) and feathered serpent (right) heads. Teotihuacan, Mexico, Mesoamerica.

Although it is the smallest of the three pyramid-temples along the Street of the Dead, the Pyramid of Quetzalcoatl (or the Temple of the Feathered Serpent, Quetzalcoatl), as well as its surrounding central plaza, are home to the greatest concentration of Teotihuacan’s sculptural and painted iconography. (Google Arts & Culture) Architectural sculpture attached to the temple are more than just decorative, displaying "Tlaloc" and feathered serpent heads. There are indents in the eyes for the placement of light-reflecting gems. It is believed that they suggest a strong ideological significance, but the significance itself remains highly debated. (Temple of the Feathered Serpent)

teotihuacan sculpture. 

Mask, 4th–8th century, Teotihuacan, Mexico, Mesoamerica. Onyx marble (tecalli). The Metropolitan Museum of Art.

Sculptures were varied, as there was no tradition of portraiture in Teotihuacan culture. Masks were made in this idealized style, we believe, to be a representation towards a status symbol, or towards a standardized art motif of the time. It is carved out of Onyx marble, a precious stone, and may have been painted at one point. Depressions in the eyes and mouth may suggest that they were once homes for inlaid shells, stones, or other precious stones. There are perforations on the sides, intending that the mask may have not been worn by people, but instead attached to further sculptures; human figures, mummies, or deity bundles. (Doyle)

teotihuacan paintings.

Wall painting, 7th–8th century. Teotihuacan, Mexico, Mesoamerica. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. 

Paintings can be found everywhere in Teotihuacan culture: on walls, on statues, on various kinds of ceramics. The painting above, is an example of the many floor-to-ceiling murals that cover the walls of many of the high-status apartment compounds, frescoed murals depicting elaborate scenes and enigmatic iconography. (Doyle)

teotihuacan ceramics. 

Vessel from Tlaxcala with procession of figures, 550–650 CE. Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco (FAMSF).

Ceramics were a vivid, expressive venue of Teotihuacan art. Stylistically, the range of variety and high quality of painting and production showed mastery and expertise in the creation of ceramics: “Teotihuacan culture boasted a range of ceramic styles. Luxury ceramics could feature abstract figures rendered in vivid colors. There are also painted ceramics that are similar to frescoes, mold-made ceramics, very large and ornate multi-part incense burners, as well as architectural ceramics.” (Eiland)

contemporary references to teotihuacan.

Ralph Maradiaga Mini-Park, 24th & York. Mosaic sculpture, Colette Crutcher and Aileen Barr, 2010.

In San Francisco’s Mission District, various artists have paid homage to Teotihuacan culture. A mosaic sculpture done by artists Colette Crutcher and Aileen Barr, shows an interpretation of Quetzalcoatl, the feathered serpent god the Teotihuacanos worshipped. 

The architecture of Teotihuacan can tell us so much about how the way we build our cities has evolved over time. Concepts like harmony, time-lasting material, and significance still have merit in our cities today. Look outside, see the way buildings are angled, or arched, or how high they climb in comparison to their surroundings and backdrops. The similarities are everywhere.

The Moon Pyramid and complex in Minecraft, de Young Museum.

The study and historical significance of Teotihuacan’s culture, architecture, and artwork of its diverse population is incredibly important. But not all of us can see it in our lifetimes, due to monetary restrictions or general life-work restrictions. Because of this, the exhibition curators at the de Young museum in San Francisco, California, made a 1:1 scale replication in Minecraft. The size, the scale, the recent discoveries, are all there for people worldwide to experience, with custom texture pack for a realistic representation of stone and artwork textures. Talk about incredible dedication and hard work to bring Teotihuacan to the world!

nazca culture.

Nazca civilization was homed in South America, near the coastal river valleys and high mountain basins of Peru. It flourished from about 100 BC to 800 AD. The style generally associated with the art of the Nazca – polychrome textiles, ceramics, architectural irrigation technologies – drew heavily from their contemporary, then-predecessors, the Andean society of Paracas.

The Nazca period was one of artistic flourishment and technological advancement. Religiously, the Nazca drew likely inspiration from their desert environment, beliefs based on agriculture and fertility. (Wikipedia) Many worshipped nature gods in favor of growth of crops and agriculture.

Politically, Nazca civilization was headed by a collection of chiefdoms, who worked both individually and collectively when the time called for it. There was no singular large-scale or integrated position of power. There was no centralized city. Instead, the overall population of about 25,000 people were spread across small villages. The Nazca were a state of the theocratic militaristic power sort, leadership often being those held in high qualification, usually priests and military leaders. (Cartwright)  

Small cities of the Nazca civilization usually included many domestic amenities, including ceremonial mounds, walled courts, and terraced housing. It was also home to engineered aqueducts, including the Cantalloc Aqueducts, but there were more than 40 different built to ensure the supply of water to the city and to the surrounding agricultural fields, where cotton, beans, potatoes, and other crops grew. There were many opportunities in small cities for artisans, including ceramists, architects, weavers, astrologists, and musicians, to work for the leadership. Those who were not artisans, were usually farmers and fishermen, the fundamental base of the Nazca economical society. Pieces of pottery and textiles that have been found with resources originating far from Peruvian valleys (rainforest bird feathers, and mountain-homed alpaca and llama wool, etc.) serve as examples of evidence of trade with other cultures. (Cartwright)

nazca ceramics, goldsmithing, and textiles.

Curved Beaker with Rows of Abstract Masks and Geometric Motifs, 180 BC/500 AD. The Art Institute of Chicago.

The tradition of ceramics in Nazca culture was one of stunning high-quality polychrome pottery, with the use of eleven gradations of various colors in various pieces. Shapes included “double-spout bottles, bowls, cups, vases, effigy forms, and mythical creatures”. (Wikipedia) Pieces usually feature motifs, drawing from the environment, myth, religion, geometric, or deity representation.

Nazca ceramics were made before the use of wheels, and instead done by building coil walls up, then smoothing them out, before sometimes adding a smooth layer of soft clay for painting. Their reflective, smooth and shiny surfaces were made with the process of careful burnishing, or polishing/rubbing during the late drying stages. Many of the best-conserved examples we’ve found have been preserved in graves, buried with the mummified dead, either in dug graves or in tombs.

Nose Ornaments in the Form of Feline Whiskers, 180 BC/500 AD., The Art Institute of Chicago.

Gold and silver were also used in ceremonial and religious traditions, worn in the style of jewelry: masks, ear flaps, nose rings, or other adornments. To be worn they were flattened, cut, and embossed.

Panel, 500/600 AD, The Art Institute of Chicago.

Textiles were produced with cotton and wool, using techniques of muslin, brocading, tapestry, embroidery, painted cloth, and tridimensional weaving. Thread was dyed various different colors. Textiles, alike Nazca ceramics, usually portrayed themes, or motifs, worn for religious ceremonies or rituals. Excavations have found spindles, looms, needles, cotton, and pots of dyes at various Nazca sites. (Cartwright)

The panel above displays human-animal duality, portraying anthropomorphic abstract figures. The orientation can be shifted and still understood due to the range of horizontal symmetry. The many different heads featured are meant to signify supernatural, otherworldly powers, leaning towards this piece having ritualistic significance. (Art Institute of Chicago)

the nazca lines.

Of course, it is difficult to talk about Nazca culture, and not immediately turn to the famed Nazca lines; large geoglyphs seen only from an aerial vantage point, spanning over 50 miles, that have remained intact over the last 2000 years. The lines were made by clearing – with incredible detail – the red rocks of the Sechura (Nazca) desert, and exposing the greyish sand beneath. The geoglyphs are incredibly geometric, consisting of images that are of zoomorphic (animal-based) and phytomorphic (trees, flowers, etc.) shapes. (Bahadur)

The meaning of the lines has been heavily debated over the last handful of decades: leaning towards agricultural, to sacred rites for aquifers and springs, to astronomical and calendrical theories. National Geographic explorer Johan Reinhard summarized the versatile meaning of the lines in his book The Nazca Lines: A New Perspective on their Origin and Meaning: “No single evaluation proves a theory about the lines, but the combination of archaeology, ethnohistory, and anthropology builds a solid case.” (Reinhard) The way we see the world and our past continually adds onto itself, and with further research and a little bit of luck, we will hopefully find the origin and true meaning of the Nazca lines in the relative future.

Works Cited:

“Art and identity in the ancient city of Teotihuacan.” Gardiner Museum Blog, Gardiner Museum. 2018. URL. 

“Teotihuacan, Mexico.” Google Arts and Culture, Google. Dec 2009. URL.

Bahadur, Tulika. “The Nazca Lines.” On Art and Aesthetics. eLucidAction. 8 May, 2016, URL.

Cartwright, Mark. “Nazca Civilization.” Ancient History Encyclopedia, Ancient History Encyclopedia Limited, 23 May 2014. URL.

Doyle, James. “The Arts of a Mesoamerican Metropolis, Here at the Met.” The Met, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 19 Nov. 2014. URL.

Eiland, Murray Lee. “Ceramics from the Birthplace of the Gods.” Ceramics Monthly, The Ceramic Arts Network, 8 Jan 2019. URL.

Moran, Barbara. “Lessons from Teo.” The Brink, Boston University, 6 Oct 2015. URL.

Reinhard, Johan. The Nazca Lines: A New Perspective on their Origin and Meaning. Editorial Los Pinos, 1986.

Vance, Erik. “An Homage to Teotihuacan.” Sapiens, Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research, Inc. 5 July 2018. URL.

Wikipedia editors. “Temple of the Feathered Serpent, Teotihuacan.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia, 7 Sep. 2019. URL.

Wikipedia editors. “Teotihuacán.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia, 4 Sep. 2019. URL.

Wikipedia editors. “Nazca Culture.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia, 16 May 2019. URL.

Art Cited:

Curved Beaker with Rows of Abstract Masks and Geometric Motifs, 180 BC/500 AD. The Art Institute of Chicago, Chicago. URL.

Explore Teotihuacan at Home with Minecraft, de Young Museum. 21 Sep, 2017. URL.

Mask. 4th–8th century, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. URL.

Mosaic sculpture, Colette Crutcher and Aileen Barr, Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco. URL.

Nose Ornaments in the Form of Feline Whiskers, 180 BC/500 AD., The Art Institute of Chicago, Chicago. URL.

Panel, 500/600 A.D. The Art Institute of Chicago, Chicago. URL.

The Sun Pyramid. Jorge Pérez de Lara Elías, Flickr.  URL.

Vessel with Procession of Figures. 4th–8th century, Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco, San Francisco, California. URL.

[calilili]

#21stCentury is our Opportunity to ask OURSELVES ...

" In these "Hard Times" it's so easy to point out "What's Wrong with _____ " bc since #Election2016, so many harmful behaviors have been given free reign, running "#wild" to challenge "#civilization" ... I have been looking for ways to learn from it all ... and one of the places my mind keeps "roaming" ... is that ... these harmful behaviors are exhibited by those who took the opportunity to capitalize upon the #Misogyny#Racism #Homophobia #Sexism #Corporatism #ClimateDenial #Greed + Fanciful Justifiers 4 #Indifference 2wrd our fellow #HumanBeings #Life#Wildlife #MotherEarth #Oceans which has unfortunately sought to fully dominate our shared cultures, civilizations and #planet for years, and centuries. The #21stCentury is our #Opportunity to View, in full View ... the tendencies we have struggled to manage for so long ... the #21stCentury is our Opportunity to ask OURSELVES, every one of us : What part of ME seeks to #coopt and #compete instead of #cooperate... We see that #competitive " one upsmanship " in every aspect of every #industry ... including industries like #arts + #education ... #medicine#law ... not to say that #competition is necessarily negative, it often brings out the best in us ... but often, it's just about #Power + finally #Succeeding so we can brag to our parents, friends, and ourselves ... We see daily, as a result of the #misogyny which has seeped itself deeply into the cell walls of every aspect of culture, including EVEN the #DemocraticParty ( we know the Republican Party has fed from the trough of misogyny, sexism, racism, homophobia, and climate neglect for many years ) What we witness today is an example of what happens with an #Ego #RunAmuck ... the #depravity of pure #ambition ... leading to pure fascism ... so I ask every one of us ... to ask ourselves in our own hearts : in what part of my life am I seeking to co-opt innocence simply in order to prove my "superiority" ... Again, nothing wrong with #competing for a #prize ... especially when it's in #fun and #celebration of the #humanspirit ... and especially when it #Unites Us ... but I ask, that we ask ourselves : is it a clean competition in which I engage ? Am I simply shutting down my competition in order to win so I can prove to my parents, my friends, myself that I really AM a success ? And ... how do I define #success ? ... All these ideas came to me as I listened to this episode about #Wildlife ... I was particularly struck by the #misogyny I heard from a #Scientist studying #whoopingcranes ... LOL ... I know that is obscure ... but having just made a feature film / indie film that deals in part, with #MisogynyInScience and #FemaleScientists ... I guess my "antennae" are sensitized to hearing it ....( yes I know some would say "over-sensitized" ... see, THAT's part of the problem with #misogyny ... it can be explained ... #mansplained in so many which ways ) .... So ... Here are some thoughts about the #whoopingcrane story ... http://www.radiolab.org/story/birds/#commentform ( in short : scientists conducted an #experiment releasing whooping cranes "into the wild" but found the cranes began feeding on #birdfeeders situated in a backyard ... when they asked the "lady of the house" to take down her bird-feeders, she refused ... we ultimately discover that the reason she refused to take down the feeders, is that her husband, dying of #alzheimers disease, took his greatest final pleasures, and final moments with his wife, in viewing the birds who had visited their home for so many years ... ) ... these thoughts also relate to every other aspect of this excellent episode of the always excellent #radiolab #radiolabpodcast : i want to preface my comment with the fact that I am a person who is SUPER dedicated to protecting the #environment, and ESPECIALLY our sisters and brothers in the wildlife kingdom... I mean ... I am VERY involved in caring for the environment ... but when I heard the scientist in the whooping crane story, reacting to the gentlewoman, who was caring for her ailing husband, in part thru their life-long relationship to wildlife .. I i found it so ... unfortunately "predictable" that the scientist would have called the woman with the bird-feeders a "crazy bird woman" ... he either knew or didn't care about the circumstances that led her to refuse to take down the feeders ... if scientists decide to do an experiment "in the wild" ... and yet they are conducting the experiment with a perimeter that includes "human wild-life" ... as in, us humans, as "wild" beings with "wild" emotions, "wild" needs ... especially those of us who happen to be #male, who may exhibit our "wildness" in a manner that might be ( likely is) very VERY different from the "wildness" of male humans, ... ( that wildness in us females, often exhibited in behaviors related to "love" , " nurturing" "family bonding" ... etc .... ) then scientists might add in to their experiment, how the "wildness" in humans might intersect with animal "wild life" ... as you might glean, i actually consider aspects of human behavior to be "wild life" ... and I know that the dampening of that part of human beings, leads to a deadly "over intellectualization" ... and eventually a "corporatization" of the human, being human ... so I'd ask ... why didn't the scientists conduct the experiment in a region where there could be no bird-feeders ? ... and I also request ... that Scientists listen to the misogynist, cruel tone struck, when they maligned the gentlewoman's "mental capacities" when she wouldn't succumb to their dictates ... I want it to be understood, that in a misogynist world, in large and small ways, women, females, girls, who refuse to do what we are told ... by some real or imagined "authority" figure, are often maligned in the same manner ... and very often called "crazy" when we refuse to give up what is wild in us. These scientists would be better served, learning from the "crazy bird lady" than in attempting to poach what is wild in her. " ©Cali Lili ™ If there are any #FemaleScientists out there who might like to discuss these ideas, and perhaps discuss a preview of my feature film project, I am definitely interested in a discussion and my FeMPoWorD™ team and I would appreciate your "likes" and shares on the Movie Trailer, Social Media sites, and at the Music previews site ! ( Preview song from my upcoming Motion Picture entitled " eVe N' god this female is not yet rated ™ : https://calililiindies.bandcamp.com/track/rules-of-engagement-ragtagraptag-cali-lili-cali-lili-indies-all-rights-reserved

[sableaire]

Hi. I'm studying Jap Lit for 4 years. Fall term always goes fine bur when comes spring, I always fail. I'm still taking first class lessons this year. We have a jap culture community, I am the president this year. Tho everybody hate me and thinks I got the job bc I'm close to the Professor. I may not be a good student but I'm very good when it comes to bureaucracy and paper work. I know what to do, how to talk, I get shit done. I was working alone but now I have vices. 1/// ++

Dear Anon, rest assured, I received all parts of this ask. However, in hopes of respecting your privacy, I am only including the text from this one here. I hope that you don’t mind.

Before I respond, I would just like to shed some light on the approach you can expect from this response. Offline, I’m just a normal university student myself. Perhaps one day I will be a professional mediator or counselor or therapist. However, in my current form, I am unqualified to present any firm suggestions, strategies, or solutions.

As such, this response will be my perspective on the details you have chosen to share with me. I know for a fact that sometimes, emotions can close a person off in their own head, and they might not be able to see a situation from a different angle. I also know that it can be hard to believe other perspectives that don’t line up with your own, so as you read on, please keep in mind that:

I am a stranger on the internet, and I have no reason to lie.

I am not so kind as to say platitudes just to make someone feel better.

I, as a person, pride myself on never saying something I don’t mean.

So please read this post with the assurance that everything that I write is something I perceive to be the truth. I hope that this will be of some help in figuring out your path. More below the cut:

Rather than chronological order, I’ll be addressing themes that I have personal experience with first, as I feel as though those are the points in which my perspective will be most valuable to you.

You mentioned that you feel as though you don’t deserve the people you have around you. You specifically mentioned a non-family individual as well, who would have no societal obligation towards you, and so they are specifically choosing to spend time with you.

I know that when your mind is constantly telling you that you’re not worth people’s time, it’s difficult to think otherwise. After all, at that point it’s your conscious mind vs. the rest of it, and the rest of it has the advantage in numbers and is shouting louder than that one conscious voice. It’s hard to talk yourself up or think of yourself as respectable or valuable.

In the past, I struggled a lot with thinking that people only stuck around with me because they were too polite to tell me to stop bothering them. I didn’t bring it up for a long time because I was afraid that they might say no and then resent me for making them lie to me. I won’t co-opt this post for that long story, but basically, I brought this up to a friend, and skipping past the middle details, at the end she told me that she’s not so nice as to waste her time with someone she didn’t enjoy being around.

And in my experience, that’s true. Other people will have other opinions of you, whether or not they coincide with your own, and the nature of people is that they will not associate with people in their free time if they don’t enjoy being around them. If someone is choosing to hang out with you, respect them, their intelligence, and their autonomy by accepting their decision as a person .

Of course, that doesn’t mean that your value rests in the opinions of others. This mindset is specifically to address the feeling that you don’t deserve people who are choosing to spend time with you.

Another point that stood out to me amongst your asks is that you “feel like a failure” - specifically, you said that you “feel” like one. Though you may not realize it, that’s an important distinction to make. Feelings are not reality - merely a perception of it. Just because you feel like a failure does not mean that you are one, and it’s an extremely good thing that you make the distinction, even if it’s unconsciously.

I’m sorry that one of your vice-executives are overstepping her boundaries. That’s inappropriate of her and unfair to you, but I can’t offer my thoughts without more specific details, in this respect. Was there a time that you were excited to be president of this community? Any feelings or grand plans that you might have had? Rather than worrying about this vice-executive’s options, if there was a time that you enjoyed the idea of the presidency - or even just the culture community as a whole - maybe try to get back in touch with those initial ideas. If there was ever an aspect of the community that made you happy, try to not lose touch with those first feelings.

Also, it’s important to remember that things like becoming president of a culture community and getting a summer trip to Japan (I’m assuming it’s related?) don’t come out of nothing. Even in instances where there is favoritism involved, putting someone in a position usually means they are investing in that person because they see some sort of potential there. It at the very least means they’re confident that the person won’t run the community into the ground.

You mentioned academic hardships and concerns regarding your future. It sounds to me as though you grew up, then, with people telling you that there’s a specific path and order to success - do well in school, get in a good college; do well in college, get a good job; do well in a job, get a good life - does that sound right? If not, I’m sorry for making an assumption. I may have been biased towards that reading because this is, again, something I struggled with in my own life.

But regardless, you seem to be someone who takes their studies seriously, which is admirable. However, I know because my own academic background was hyper-competitive (Korea, woo), this also means that every failure feels like a blow. This is especially worse if you were a successful child because adults will always compare you to yourself, as though something went wrong as you grew up, when it’s really that experiences have shaped you and the world taught you and your mind different priorities. Sometimes that priority is reducing stress, which may manifest as lack of motivation. Sometimes that priority is keeping yourself safe, which results in anxiety. All this together can make an academic failure seem like the end of the line.

However, it’s not. No matter how scary it may be to wander off the paved path - the one society tells you is safest - who doesn’t wander off into nature once or twice? Maybe it’s a forest. Maybe it’s grasslands. Maybe it’s the beach, who knows. But saying that going straight from high school to university is better than taking time, taking it at a slower more manageable pace, is about as stupid as saying that the paved path is inherently better than nature.

If you’re struggling academically, that doesn’t mean that there’s something wrong with you - it means that there’s something wrong with the way you’re approaching the problem. Maybe you’re doing too much at once, or maybe you’re taking it too fast. Maybe you’re taking a more aggressive approach to academia when you should be pacing yourself for a long match. 

If you find a different strategy, you can find the solution that’s right for you. For some people, it’s finding assistance through the school, be it through extra time for assignments or delayed exams (possible if your school gives assistance for mental illnesses). For others, it might be taking a break from school for a bit and coming back later. Only you will know what’s right for you. Definitely ask around for information to seek out your options, but the final choice should be yours and yours alone.

You also mentioned a dream, and god, what a good dream. If you’ve been following me, you already know that I love languages myself, so I think wanting to be a professor in a related field is an amazing goal. However, it seems that you’re having your doubts about its feasibility.

In my view, you’re only 22 years old. It may not seem like it because we’ve only been alive for about that long, but in the grand scheme of things, 20 years old is really, really young. Assuming nothing happens, we have decades to achieve our dreams and find satisfaction in our lives.

There are many professions that aren’t aging very well. There are too many doctors, too many lawyers. As technology advances, there’s less and less need for certain professions. But language - as technology advances and different countries interconnect, there’s only ever a growing need for language! Be it to learn another language, to translate between them, to understand how they form and relate, or to conserve a dying language, there’s never an end to the need for languages and their related professions.

Everyone deserves the opportunity to do what they love, as long as that desire does not harm themselves or others. Your aspiration to be a professor is nothing but beneficial, and it’s an admirable dream. All I have to say about it is that it’s alright to slow down. You mentioned that you don’t know whether to pursue your dream or to go find a job now - they’re not mutually exclusive.

You can take time trying other jobs for now to find your financial footing, and then you can go back to school, maybe get a graduate degree. There’s no hurry, and you don’t need to become a TA in your 20s, a professor by 30s. And with the advent of the internet, you don’t need to rush to become a professor to teach either - especially if you struggle with interpersonal interactions, you could try offering tutoring or private lesson services to work with people one-on-one, or you could try teaching an online class.

This is getting kind of long, and I’m not sure how helpful I’m being, but I would just like to add that in my freshman year of college, I had a lot of reason to think about the nature of depression, unhappiness, and desire to die. I came to the tentative conclusion that people despair most when they don’t have someone to share their suffering with, to talk to about their genuine hardships and petty grievances and unhappy moments.

You mentioned that you’re tired of acting like you’re okay. Well, of course you are, if you have to keep it up all the time - I don’t blame you for being tired, and I don’t blame you for wanting it to end. However, there are ways to bring it to an end through living. I encourage you to find someone in your life whom you can drop the act around, someone who you can talk to about how you feel. I can’t say who this person should be, as I do not know the people in your life, but it’s important to have someone in your life, in the physical realm, not just online, whom you can talk to honestly about your feelings.

And that can be scary - after all, who would want to spend time with someone who just feels bad all the time, or maybe your thinking is more that people only like you because you seem like you have your life together, and once they see beyond the facade, maybe they won’t like you anymore– see, that’s the part that I can relate to, because I’ve been stuck in that spiral of thought as well.

It took time, and it took patience, and it took a lot of conscious thinking. I had to psych myself up to it, and I made a lot of contingency plans and emotional failsafes before I could bring myself to take the chance with a friend of mine. Now they know how down I can get sometimes, how irrational my fears can get, but we’re still friends, and perhaps closer for it. That initial honesty lets me be more honest with them on a daily basis, and they return the favor.

Opening up to the people around you is a sign of care and a show of trust, and the people worth your time will recognize that.

You also mentioned that you struggle more mentally and emotionally in the springtime compared to the rest of the year. This sounds to me like you may want to look into Seasonal Affective Disorder. I would definitely recommend getting a professional diagnosis, however, and even if I am wrong, a professional may be able to help you relieve those symptoms. I do not know what country you are from nor what your community’s opinion is on mental health issues, but regarding this and some past events you have mentioned, someone who has finished their study and obtained a license would be far more helpful than me.

To close, you asked me a question regarding death. I can’t really answer the question you asked me specifically because of my view on death. Ultimately, my view is that death is not something ‘deserved’ or ‘undeserved’ - it’s not a blessing nor a punishment. In my view, ‘death’ is not ‘freedom’ either. My philosophy on death is complicated, and I don’t plan to shoehorn it into this post. However, I do think this: Death is the ‘final change’ of Life.

As long you are living, change is assured - that’s the nature of life, the ups and downs. The world doesn’t stand still, and people don’t stay the same. Nothing in life is constant except that things will change. However, change just means opportunities.

Death, however, no one living knows anything of death. All we know is that it means we stop living. For as long as you’re living, both changes and opportunities are assured. We don’t know what lies beyond living, and so to me, death is ‘the loss of assured opportunities’. Death means that maybe there are no more changes, maybe there are no more opportunities. It’s a ‘maybe things won’t get worse’, but it’s also a ‘maybe things won’t ever get better’.

I wish you luck with everything, Anon, and - oh! Enjoy your trip to Japan. If you don’t feel like you deserve it, well, think of it as a lucky opportunity and enjoy it thoroughly. Does a person who wins a lottery ever truly deserve the winning ticket? No, they’re just lucky. So if you think you don’t deserve it, enjoy that trip and learn from it as if it were a sweepstakes win and make it worthwhile. 

Use the trip to give yourself time to reset. It will be a new experience, and new experiences are what stimulate change in our lives. So go, have fun, and if you don’t feel like you deserve the trip yet, go and take in the sights and the cultures. Learn and appreciate more than other people might. Heck, you’re in a culture community. I would say you deserve that trip more than some other people who would only want to go to Japan for the shopping and nothing else.

In any case, I’m sorry this is so long, Anon. I hope it was helpful in some capacity, and if anything was instead counterproductive, I apologize. Even so, I hope things improve for you soon. Please tell me how your trip to Japan goes, too!

[ongames]

Trump Wants To Roll Back Birth Control Access. Women Aren't Having It.

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible);

The Trump administration is poised to roll back an Obamacare mandate that requires employers to cover birth control for female employees, according to a draft rule released this week.

Democratic leaders have called the move “sickening.” The American Civil Liberties Union said it would fight the rule in court. And women across the country who have come to count on being able to access a broad range of contraceptive options without a copay were outraged, taking to Twitter to share their personal stories.

Used to pay roughly $1200 a year for the pill. Now I pay nothing. Would love for it to remain the case. *smh* https://t.co/hwRWqPd4xH

— Hugh Madson (@sweet_epiphany) May 31, 2017

ACA meant I could afford my long term implanted bc (implanon!) and let my husband and I focus on paying off our debt before having kids. https://t.co/XVWwEXaRfe

— Meagan Lopez (@MeaganMCrowe) May 31, 2017

HuffPost Women spoke to 12 women about how the Affordable Care Act’s birth control mandate has affected their lives, and the many reasons why they rely on birth control. Here are their powerful stories.

  Alexandra, 31, got an IUD after being raped:

“I wasn’t on birth control when I was raped at 19. It was the scariest six weeks of my life as I waited for my next cycle. I have an IUD now, which I got 10 years after my rape when I was a staff member at Planned Parenthood. I’m on medication to treat several autoimmune disorders and cannot get pregnant. 

Birth control is more than a contraceptive to me; it helped me regain control of my body after someone robbed it from me. I was able to get my IUD covered through the mandate. In three years, when I need a new one put in, I know I will not be able to afford to pay out of pocket. It would be a financial burden, but my Mirena is part of my medical treatment—just like the other medications I take.” —Alexandra Dukat, 31, New York

  Anonymous, 23, needs birth control to help manage her PCOS:

“I have Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome, which is an endocrine disorder that causes a host of problems, like painful cysts, weight gain, insulin resistance and diabetes, acne, exhaustion, brain fog, vitamin deficiencies, depression, anxiety, and trouble getting pregnant, just to name few. My birth control prescription not only helps keep all of those symptoms at bay, it allowed me to finish a bachelor’s degree in three years because I was able to actually function.

The day that the Obamacare birth control mandate went into effect, I cried at the pharmacy counter. I wasn’t really aware of what was happening ― I was in college, still on my mother’s insurance and was accustomed to forking over $20 of my $100 monthly grocery budget for the pill. It was such a huge relief to know I would be covered at no cost. I am worried now, knowing that as I search for jobs in the post-grad world, that I could wind up in a similar situation ― or worse. I hear people say, ‘Well, you shouldn’t go to work for a company that wouldn’t cover your birth control at 100 percent.’ As if every person in the country gets a million options for employment. As if this won’t turn into a slippery slope of non-religious employers opting out of the mandate just to cut costs.” —Anonymous, 23, Texas

  Danielle, 26, needs birth control to get out of bed and function: 

“I have been on birth control since age 16 due to incredibly painful heavy periods and ovarian cysts. The pain was so terrible that a couple days every month I would be bedridden. The paramedics even had to come to my home because I would often hyperventilate from the electrifying pain and pass out. 

With birth control pills, my pain is almost entirely gone, and so are my cysts. I can participate in life. Birth control lets me rock my career, explore and try new activities and travel the world with my love—plus, I don’t want kids. Not now, not ever.”—Danielle Chandler, 26, California

  Anne, 40, needs her birth control to be covered or she’ll have to have a hysterectomy: 

“I was grateful for the coverage mandate when I began taking birth control pills while undergoing infertility treatment. Before two separate egg retrieval operations, I needed to take the pill to prevent natural egg release. Infertility treatment is extremely expensive, and we were desperate just for that little bit of financial relief. We were already extended, and it was just a bit more that we didn’t have to take out in a loan. 

While our attempts to have a baby were ultimately unsuccessful, my doctor is currently considering birth control pills to help manage an issue with recurring uterine fibroids. Without coverage, I will likely have to resort to a hysterectomy as I cannot afford additional monthly medical expenses.” —Anne Hunter, 40, Illinois

  Katrina, 35, takes birth control to lower her cancer risk:

“I’m a BRCA carrier, like Angelina Jolie, who lives in fear of ovarian cancer. If a pill means that I can lower the chances of meeting the fate of my family members, I want that pill. I took it for 10 years and have also used an IUD. I also recently had my tubes removed. All of my birth control choices, from the pill to surgery, were covered by my insurance. 

The idea that my BRCA mutation, which I may have passed on to my three daughters, could already be considered a preexisting condition is stressful enough without knowing that the one thing that is non-invasive and can help reduce their risk can be taken away as well.” —Katrina, 35, New Jersey

  Kelsey, 24, needs birth control to function and she can’t afford $100 a month:

“I’ve been on birth control since I was in 8th grade. When I got my period, I bled for almost two whole weeks every month and remember having constant spotting. Schools only were allowed to administer so much ibuprofen, Tylenol before I was turned away and was eventually sent home because I couldn’t sit upright in my desk chair.

I’m now 24 years old and have never stopped taking birth control. I have an active sex life with my long-term boyfriend. We are both college grads with crippling amounts of student debt and rely on my birth control being free every month. We don’t want to have to decide between $100 for a prescription or $100 for food for the month. I’m scared. I don’t want my coverage of birth control to disappear. Will I be able to continue working if the unbearable cramps return with the two-week periods? I don’t know—and I don’t want to find out.” —Kelsey, 24, Kansas

  Lynnsey, 25, needs the NuvaRing to manage her endometriosis: 

“I rely on contraceptives to manage my endometriosis. After complications and a surgery to remove an ovary, I’ve finally found a doctor who knows how to keep my symptoms at bay, and that includes taking birth control.

Without the coverage mandate, I wouldn’t be able to afford the medication that prevents my endometriosis from getting worse and damaging other organs. I currently use the NuvaRing, which would cost around $130. I would not be able to swing that much each month.” —Lynnsey, 25, Wisconsin

  Devina, 23, uses birth control because she never wants kids:

“I’m 23 years old and have always known I never wanted kids. The free birth control my employer’s health insurance provides makes that happen. My mother, who was not so fortunate to have easily accessible birth control, had me at a young age and raised me on her own and went through struggles I will never know to ensure she could not only provide a promising future for me, but for herself as well (she got a Ph.D. in math).

With the current contraceptive mandate, I know my reproductive future will go exactly the way I want it to, and that I can stay as happy in life as I am right now. Before, I had to pay a $40 co-pay every month. I could afford that, but other women cannot.” —Devina Alvarado-Rodela, 23, Arizona

  Nicole, 28, worries she won’t be able to afford another IUD: 

“I started taking pills I believe when I was 13 to track my periods and make sure they didn’t interfere with swim meets. My periods meant horrible cramps, so knowing what meets had conflicting dates with my cycle was really, really helpful.

Eventually, I switched to an IUD, which was paid for in full by my insurance. I need to replace it next year, and I’ll admit I’m a little nervous—I’m not sure how much a replacement will run me. My fiance and I have talked about it and I’ve agreed to go back on the pill if that’s more within our price range. While I’m sure we can afford some form of birth control, I’m sad that price might mean limiting some of our options.” —Nicole, 28, Florida

  Anonymous, 23, got better birth control through the ACA:

“I’m young. I work three jobs and can barely make ends meet. Having a baby now would ruin me financially, probably for the rest of my life—not to mention how it would impact that child. I rely on birth control because I don’t think I should have to take a vow of celibacy just because I’m not financially stable yet.

Before the ACA, I was on the cheapest generic birth control I could get—it cost me about $10 a month out of pocket. After the election, I scheduled an appointment to get an IUD and it’s looking more and more like I made the right decision.”—Anonymous, 27, Missouri

  Mandie, 31, needs birth control to help with PMDD:

“I depend on birth control to help with my acne, to combat PMDD (which is an awful, super-sized version of PMS) and to curb cramps. I already pay about $30 a month out-of-pocket on other prescriptions, so it’s really nice that this has been free and available to me. The kind I take isn’t cheap—well over $50 a month without coverage. Without insurance, I’d never be able to afford it.” —Mandie, 31, Wisconsin

  Sarah, 29, already has three kids and doesn’t want another: 

“I choose to use an oral birth control pill because I currently do not want to have another baby (I recently had my third child) and I do not want to get an abortion, though I am pro-choice. I’m fortunate that the contraceptive coverage mandate doesn’t affect me, because my medications are fully covered under military health care. Unfortunately, that is not an option for everyone.” —Sarah Peachey, 29, currently based in Germany 

  Accounts have been edited and condensed. 

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Trump Wants To Roll Back Birth Control Access. Women Aren't Having It. published first on http://ift.tt/2lnpciY

[yes-dal456]

Trump Wants To Roll Back Birth Control Access. Women Aren't Having It.

//<![CDATA[ function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); //]]>

The Trump administration is poised to roll back an Obamacare mandate that requires employers to cover birth control for female employees, according to a draft rule released this week.

Democratic leaders have called the move “sickening.” The American Civil Liberties Union said it would fight the rule in court. And women across the country who have come to count on being able to access a broad range of contraceptive options without a copay were outraged, taking to Twitter to share their personal stories.

Used to pay roughly $1200 a year for the pill. Now I pay nothing. Would love for it to remain the case. *smh* https://t.co/hwRWqPd4xH

— Hugh Madson (@sweet_epiphany) May 31, 2017

ACA meant I could afford my long term implanted bc (implanon!) and let my husband and I focus on paying off our debt before having kids. https://t.co/XVWwEXaRfe

— Meagan Lopez (@MeaganMCrowe) May 31, 2017

HuffPost Women spoke to 12 women about how the Affordable Care Act’s birth control mandate has affected their lives, and the many reasons why they rely on birth control. Here are their powerful stories.

  Alexandra, 31, got an IUD after being raped:

“I wasn’t on birth control when I was raped at 19. It was the scariest six weeks of my life as I waited for my next cycle. I have an IUD now, which I got 10 years after my rape when I was a staff member at Planned Parenthood. I’m on medication to treat several autoimmune disorders and cannot get pregnant. 

Birth control is more than a contraceptive to me; it helped me regain control of my body after someone robbed it from me. I was able to get my IUD covered through the mandate. In three years, when I need a new one put in, I know I will not be able to afford to pay out of pocket. It would be a financial burden, but my Mirena is part of my medical treatment—just like the other medications I take.” —Alexandra Dukat, 31, New York

  Anonymous, 23, needs birth control to help manage her PCOS:

“I have Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome, which is an endocrine disorder that causes a host of problems, like painful cysts, weight gain, insulin resistance and diabetes, acne, exhaustion, brain fog, vitamin deficiencies, depression, anxiety, and trouble getting pregnant, just to name few. My birth control prescription not only helps keep all of those symptoms at bay, it allowed me to finish a bachelor’s degree in three years because I was able to actually function.

The day that the Obamacare birth control mandate went into effect, I cried at the pharmacy counter. I wasn’t really aware of what was happening ― I was in college, still on my mother’s insurance and was accustomed to forking over $20 of my $100 monthly grocery budget for the pill. It was such a huge relief to know I would be covered at no cost. I am worried now, knowing that as I search for jobs in the post-grad world, that I could wind up in a similar situation ― or worse. I hear people say, ‘Well, you shouldn’t go to work for a company that wouldn’t cover your birth control at 100 percent.’ As if every person in the country gets a million options for employment. As if this won’t turn into a slippery slope of non-religious employers opting out of the mandate just to cut costs.” —Anonymous, 23, Texas

  Danielle, 26, needs birth control to get out of bed and function: 

“I have been on birth control since age 16 due to incredibly painful heavy periods and ovarian cysts. The pain was so terrible that a couple days every month I would be bedridden. The paramedics even had to come to my home because I would often hyperventilate from the electrifying pain and pass out. 

With birth control pills, my pain is almost entirely gone, and so are my cysts. I can participate in life. Birth control lets me rock my career, explore and try new activities and travel the world with my love—plus, I don’t want kids. Not now, not ever.”—Danielle Chandler, 26, California

  Anne, 40, needs her birth control to be covered or she’ll have to have a hysterectomy: 

“I was grateful for the coverage mandate when I began taking birth control pills while undergoing infertility treatment. Before two separate egg retrieval operations, I needed to take the pill to prevent natural egg release. Infertility treatment is extremely expensive, and we were desperate just for that little bit of financial relief. We were already extended, and it was just a bit more that we didn’t have to take out in a loan. 

While our attempts to have a baby were ultimately unsuccessful, my doctor is currently considering birth control pills to help manage an issue with recurring uterine fibroids. Without coverage, I will likely have to resort to a hysterectomy as I cannot afford additional monthly medical expenses.” —Anne Hunter, 40, Illinois

  Katrina, 35, takes birth control to lower her cancer risk:

“I’m a BRCA carrier, like Angelina Jolie, who lives in fear of ovarian cancer. If a pill means that I can lower the chances of meeting the fate of my family members, I want that pill. I took it for 10 years and have also used an IUD. I also recently had my tubes tied. All of my birth control choices, from the pill to surgery, were covered by my insurance. 

The idea that my BRCA mutation, which I may have passed on to my three daughters, could already be considered a preexisting condition is stressful enough without knowing that the one thing that is non-invasive and can help reduce their risk can be taken away as well.” —Katrina, 35, New Jersey

  Kelsey, 24, needs birth control to function and she can’t afford $100 a month:

“I’ve been on birth control since I was in 8th grade. When I got my period, I bled for almost two whole weeks every month and remember having constant spotting. Schools only were allowed to administer so much ibuprofen, Tylenol before I was turned away and was eventually sent home because I couldn’t sit upright in my desk chair.

I’m now 24 years old and have never stopped taking birth control. I have an active sex life with my long-term boyfriend. We are both college grads with crippling amounts of student debt and rely on my birth control being free every month. We don’t want to have to decide between $100 in a prescription or a $100 of food for the month. I’m scared. I don’t want my coverage of birth control to disappear. Will I be able to continue working if the unbearable cramps return with the two-week periods? I don’t know—and I don’t want to find out.” —Kelsey, 24, Kansas

  Lynnsey, 25, needs the NuvaRing to manage her endometriosis: 

“I rely on contraceptives to manage my endometriosis. After complications and a surgery to remove an ovary, I’ve finally found a doctor who knows how to keep my symptoms at bay, and that includes taking birth control.

Without the coverage mandate, I wouldn’t be able to afford the medication that prevents my endometriosis from getting worse and damaging other organs. I currently use the NuvaRing, which would cost around $130. I would not be able to swing that much each month.” —Lynnsey, 25, Wisconsin

  Devina, 23, uses birth control because she never wants kids:

“I’m 23 years old and have always known I never wanted kids. The free birth control my employer’s health insurance provides makes that happen. My mother, who was not so fortunate to have easily accessible birth control, had me at a young age and raised me on her own and went through struggles I will never know to ensure she could not only provide a promising future for me, but for herself as well (she got a Ph.D. in math).

With the current contraceptive mandate, I know my reproductive future will go exactly the way I want it to, and that I can stay as happy in life as I am right now. Before, I had to pay a $40 co-pay every month. I could afford that, but other women cannot.” —Devina Alvarado-Rodela, 23, Arizona

  Nicole, 28, worries she won’t be able to afford another IUD: 

“I started taking pills I believe when I was 13 to track my periods and make sure they didn’t interfere with swim meets. My periods meant horrible cramps, so knowing what meets had conflicting dates with my cycle was really, really helpful.

Eventually, I switched to an IUD, which was paid for in full by my insurance. I need to replace it next year, and I’ll admit I’m a little nervous—I’m not sure how much a replacement will run me. My fiance and I have talked about it and I’ve agreed to go back on the pill if that’s more within our price range. While I’m sure we can afford some form of birth control, I’m sad that price might mean limiting some of our options.” —Nicole, 28, Florida

  Anonymous, 23, got better birth control through the ACA:

“I’m young. I work three jobs and can barely make ends meet. Having a baby now would ruin me financially, probably for the rest of my life—not to mention how it would impact that child. I rely on birth control because I don’t think I should have to take a vow of celibacy just because I’m not financially stable yet.

Before the ACA, I was on the cheapest generic birth control I could get—it cost me about $10 a month out of pocket. After the election, I scheduled an appointment to get an IUD and it’s looking more and more like I made the right decision.”—Anonymous, 27, Missouri

  Mandie, 31, needs birth control to help with PMDD:

“I depend on birth control to help with my acne, to combat PMDD (which is an awful, super-sized version of PMS) and to curb cramps. I already pay about $30 a month out-of-pocket on other prescriptions, so it’s really nice that this has been free and available to me. The kind I take isn’t cheap—well over $50 a month without coverage. Without insurance, I’d never be able to afford it.” —Mandie, 31, Wisconsin

  Sarah, 29, already has three kids and doesn’t want another: 

“I choose to use an oral birth control pill because I currently do not want to have another baby (I recently had my third child) and I do not want to get an abortion, though I am pro-choice. I’m fortunate that the contraceptive coverage mandate doesn’t affect me, because my medications are fully covered under military health care. Unfortunately, that is not an option for everyone.” —Sarah Peachey, 29, currently based in Germany 

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

from http://ift.tt/2rv1szV from Blogger http://ift.tt/2rZ5GAf

[imreviewblog]

Trump Wants To Roll Back Birth Control Access. Women Aren't Having It.

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible);

The Trump administration is poised to roll back an Obamacare mandate that requires employers to cover birth control for female employees, according to a draft rule released this week.

Democratic leaders have called the move “sickening.” The American Civil Liberties Union said it would fight the rule in court. And women across the country who have come to count on being able to access a broad range of contraceptive options without a copay were outraged, taking to Twitter to share their personal stories.

Used to pay roughly $1200 a year for the pill. Now I pay nothing. Would love for it to remain the case. *smh* http://bit.ly/2rJB2v2

— Hugh Madson (@sweet_epiphany) May 31, 2017

ACA meant I could afford my long term implanted bc (implanon!) and let my husband and I focus on paying off our debt before having kids. http://bit.ly/2siX3ht

— Meagan Lopez (@MeaganMCrowe) May 31, 2017

HuffPost Women spoke to 12 women about how the Affordable Care Act’s birth control mandate has affected their lives, and the many reasons why they rely on birth control. Here are their powerful stories.

  Alexandra, 31, got an IUD after being raped:

“I wasn’t on birth control when I was raped at 19. It was the scariest six weeks of my life as I waited for my next cycle. I have an IUD now, which I got 10 years after my rape when I was a staff member at Planned Parenthood. I’m on medication to treat several autoimmune disorders and cannot get pregnant. 

Birth control is more than a contraceptive to me; it helped me regain control of my body after someone robbed it from me. I was able to get my IUD covered through the mandate. In three years, when I need a new one put in, I know I will not be able to afford to pay out of pocket. It would be a financial burden, but my Mirena is part of my medical treatment—just like the other medications I take.” —Alexandra Dukat, 31, New York

  Anonymous, 23, needs birth control to help manage her PCOS:

“I have Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome, which is an endocrine disorder that causes a host of problems, like painful cysts, weight gain, insulin resistance and diabetes, acne, exhaustion, brain fog, vitamin deficiencies, depression, anxiety, and trouble getting pregnant, just to name few. My birth control prescription not only helps keep all of those symptoms at bay, it allowed me to finish a bachelor’s degree in three years because I was able to actually function.

The day that the Obamacare birth control mandate went into effect, I cried at the pharmacy counter. I wasn’t really aware of what was happening ― I was in college, still on my mother’s insurance and was accustomed to forking over $20 of my $100 monthly grocery budget for the pill. It was such a huge relief to know I would be covered at no cost. I am worried now, knowing that as I search for jobs in the post-grad world, that I could wind up in a similar situation ― or worse. I hear people say, ‘Well, you shouldn’t go to work for a company that wouldn’t cover your birth control at 100 percent.’ As if every person in the country gets a million options for employment. As if this won’t turn into a slippery slope of non-religious employers opting out of the mandate just to cut costs.” —Anonymous, 23, Texas

  Danielle, 26, needs birth control to get out of bed and function: 

“I have been on birth control since age 16 due to incredibly painful heavy periods and ovarian cysts. The pain was so terrible that a couple days every month I would be bedridden. The paramedics even had to come to my home because I would often hyperventilate from the electrifying pain and pass out. 

With birth control pills, my pain is almost entirely gone, and so are my cysts. I can participate in life. Birth control lets me rock my career, explore and try new activities and travel the world with my love—plus, I don’t want kids. Not now, not ever.”—Danielle Chandler, 26, California

  Anne, 40, needs her birth control to be covered or she’ll have to have a hysterectomy: 

“I was grateful for the coverage mandate when I began taking birth control pills while undergoing infertility treatment. Before two separate egg retrieval operations, I needed to take the pill to prevent natural egg release. Infertility treatment is extremely expensive, and we were desperate just for that little bit of financial relief. We were already extended, and it was just a bit more that we didn’t have to take out in a loan. 

While our attempts to have a baby were ultimately unsuccessful, my doctor is currently considering birth control pills to help manage an issue with recurring uterine fibroids. Without coverage, I will likely have to resort to a hysterectomy as I cannot afford additional monthly medical expenses.” —Anne Hunter, 40, Illinois

  Katrina, 35, takes birth control to lower her cancer risk:

“I’m a BRCA carrier, like Angelina Jolie, who lives in fear of ovarian cancer. If a pill means that I can lower the chances of meeting the fate of my family members, I want that pill. I took it for 10 years and have also used an IUD. I also recently had my tubes tied. All of my birth control choices, from the pill to surgery, were covered by my insurance. 

The idea that my BRCA mutation, which I may have passed on to my three daughters, could already be considered a preexisting condition is stressful enough without knowing that the one thing that is non-invasive and can help reduce their risk can be taken away as well.” —Katrina, 35, New Jersey

  Kelsey, 24, needs birth control to function and she can’t afford $100 a month:

“I’ve been on birth control since I was in 8th grade. When I got my period, I bled for almost two whole weeks every month and remember having constant spotting. Schools only were allowed to administer so much ibuprofen, Tylenol before I was turned away and was eventually sent home because I couldn’t sit upright in my desk chair.

I’m now 24 years old and have never stopped taking birth control. I have an active sex life with my long-term boyfriend. We are both college grads with crippling amounts of student debt and rely on my birth control being free every month. We don’t want to have to decide between $100 in a prescription or a $100 of food for the month. I’m scared. I don’t want my coverage of birth control to disappear. Will I be able to continue working if the unbearable cramps return with the two-week periods? I don’t know—and I don’t want to find out.” —Kelsey, 24, Kansas

  Lynnsey, 25, needs the NuvaRing to manage her endometriosis: 

“I rely on contraceptives to manage my endometriosis. After complications and a surgery to remove an ovary, I’ve finally found a doctor who knows how to keep my symptoms at bay, and that includes taking birth control.

Without the coverage mandate, I wouldn’t be able to afford the medication that prevents my endometriosis from getting worse and damaging other organs. I currently use the NuvaRing, which would cost around $130. I would not be able to swing that much each month.” —Lynnsey, 25, Wisconsin

  Devina, 23, uses birth control because she never wants kids:

“I’m 23 years old and have always known I never wanted kids. The free birth control my employer’s health insurance provides makes that happen. My mother, who was not so fortunate to have easily accessible birth control, had me at a young age and raised me on her own and went through struggles I will never know to ensure she could not only provide a promising future for me, but for herself as well (she got a Ph.D. in math).

With the current contraceptive mandate, I know my reproductive future will go exactly the way I want it to, and that I can stay as happy in life as I am right now. Before, I had to pay a $40 co-pay every month. I could afford that, but other women cannot.” —Devina Alvarado-Rodela, 23, Arizona

  Nicole, 28, worries she won’t be able to afford another IUD: 

“I started taking pills I believe when I was 13 to track my periods and make sure they didn’t interfere with swim meets. My periods meant horrible cramps, so knowing what meets had conflicting dates with my cycle was really, really helpful.

Eventually, I switched to an IUD, which was paid for in full by my insurance. I need to replace it next year, and I’ll admit I’m a little nervous—I’m not sure how much a replacement will run me. My fiance and I have talked about it and I’ve agreed to go back on the pill if that’s more within our price range. While I’m sure we can afford some form of birth control, I’m sad that price might mean limiting some of our options.” —Nicole, 28, Florida

  Anonymous, 23, got better birth control through the ACA:

“I’m young. I work three jobs and can barely make ends meet. Having a baby now would ruin me financially, probably for the rest of my life—not to mention how it would impact that child. I rely on birth control because I don’t think I should have to take a vow of celibacy just because I’m not financially stable yet.

Before the ACA, I was on the cheapest generic birth control I could get—it cost me about $10 a month out of pocket. After the election, I scheduled an appointment to get an IUD and it’s looking more and more like I made the right decision.”—Anonymous, 27, Missouri

  Mandie, 31, needs birth control to help with PMDD:

“I depend on birth control to help with my acne, to combat PMDD (which is an awful, super-sized version of PMS) and to curb cramps. I already pay about $30 a month out-of-pocket on other prescriptions, so it’s really nice that this has been free and available to me. The kind I take isn’t cheap—well over $50 a month without coverage. Without insurance, I’d never be able to afford it.” —Mandie, 31, Wisconsin

  Sarah, 29, already has three kids and doesn’t want another: 

“I choose to use an oral birth control pill because I currently do not want to have another baby (I recently had my third child) and I do not want to get an abortion, though I am pro-choice. I’m fortunate that the contraceptive coverage mandate doesn’t affect me, because my medications are fully covered under military health care. Unfortunately, that is not an option for everyone.” —Sarah Peachey, 29, currently based in Germany 

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

from Healthy Living - The Huffington Post http://bit.ly/2rJWZKt