April 14, 2014

tiredestprincess:

being on tumblr right now is like playing russian roulette except the bullets are game of thrones spoilers

April 4, 2014
Misanthropy: a poem about go fuck yourself

http://www.agevitam.net/blog/misanthropy-a-poem/ :

Misanthropy: a poem about go fuck yourself

They said that I should write what I know
But all I know is that I know nothing
So…

You said that if I don’t have anything nice to say
I shouldn’t say anything at all
So you want I should just stand here and glare at you?

I think it’s more polite if I just say it
right?
In your face sputtering rabid dog obscenities foaming from the mouth
and dripping squeezed-fist blood from white-hot palms held tight (but down).
Or maybe I’ll avert my eyes
(yeah, forget it, man, it’s not worth it, just let it go)
A meek surrender seething rot like dead trees oozing vapor in the cold

What, though?
nothing was said.
How can I ignore what didn’t even happen?
aw, fuck it

Walk away from walking away from walking away
Peace is the awkward silence when we can’t work out the etiquette of war.

2:22am  |   URL: http://tmblr.co/ZGAj5w1C3JJe8
Filed under: Uncategorized 
February 18, 2014
http://absinthecocktail.tumblr.com/post/76998567137/wordsandloveandloveandwords-gorgonetta

wordsandloveandloveandwords:

gorgonetta:

ghostdrama:

i love old science fiction because it’s all like “IT’S THE DISTANT YEAR TWO THOUSAND AND THREE AND MAN IS EXPLORING THE DEEP CORNERS OF THE UNIVERSE” like god bless you old sci-fi you had such high hopes for us

And then…

February 18, 2014

mostlysignssomeportents:

Brilliant currency defacements

(Source: theartattacks)

February 4, 2014

(Source: ikaythegod, via kooisme)

February 1, 2014

(Source: kitschyliving, via amazingexplodingwoman)

December 23, 2013
Brainstorm: Categories of kinks connected-to-real-world-bad-things

unquietpirate:

lyricalagony:

{Reposted from my analytical kink blog here}

[Brainstorm posts are about things that I am still thinking about, want to think about further, etc. I want to try to write about how my thoughts are at the moment, to get them down and possibly to get feedback and other people’s thoughts]

So, I’m trying to think in more detail, and more organized detail, about kinks that connect-to-real-world-bad-things. (I’m using ‘kink’ here in the ‘have a thing for this’meaning).

Sidenote: It would be helpful to have a more concise word for this, but I am deliberately not using ‘problematic kinks’ because a big part of my view of this is that that’s not correct. I believe in analyzing feelings and noticing connections to bad things in the world, and working with that. I believe in condemning violating actions. However, I don’t believe in condemning feelings on their own, and to me kinks fit into that.

I am totally with you on this. I think the word “problematic” had some usefulness once-upon-a-time because it was used to connote “problem” as in “concrete thing that can be worked on” rather than “problem” as in “there is something fundamentally wrong with this.” But it’s been co-opted by Pop Social Justice to simply mean “you should feel guilty about this.” And I’m so not about people feeling guilty. Guilt is stop energy.

What if, instead of talking about kinks that are “problems” or “connected to bad things”, we simply acknowledged that all our kinks are connected to the real world in someways, and that there are things about the real world that are harmful and dangerous. And certain kinks will cause more harm in some context than in others. So, we’re not trying classify some kinks as “harmful” and other kinks as “not harmful.” We’re simply asking, “In what was, if any, is the way that I’m kinking on this causing harm or endangering myself or others?”

This is similar, I think, to people with institutional privilege asking “How is my privilege manifesting right now and how can I mitigate it in this particular situation?” rather than, “Am I using my privilege or not?”

Other sidenote: I also need a better word than ‘badthings’, and am very open to suggestions. In case it is unclear, I use that term to mean something like ‘ideas, paradigms, and systems in the world that are both wrong and harmful’.

But anyway, for me a big part of thinking about things tends to be organizational, so here, as I have seen and thought of them so far, are my categories for these kinks.

1. Result from conflict due to internalized badthings:
The major example of this I’ve seen is rape fantasies originating from internalized sex-shaming. So, people internalize the idea that wanting and enjoying sex is bad, but still have sexual desire, so they fantasize about a scenario where they could have sex without being ‘guilty’ of it.

2. Reactions against constant stress of badthings:
This is when the everpresence of some hurt leads to fantasies or desires of its complete absence and opposite. As a personal example, I’m pretty sure my kink/grey kink for particular kinds of F/m power dynamics (for instance, the book A Brother’s Price hits this for me) is a reaction against constantly living with the oppression of sexism.

3. Depend on bad paradigms:
This is when a kink depends on taking some such paradigms as true. The most common example where I see this talked about is forced feminization – since the kink there tends to be for the shame/degradation, it depends on a worldview where femininity is degrading. A very pervasive example of this is the whole set of kinks related to sexual degradation: good-girl/slut dichotomies, sexual derogatives (slut, whore…), etc, which all depend on the paradigm where liking/wanting sex is deviant.

4. Romanticized badthings:
This is kinks that are directly for some badthing, but focus on the aspects of it that the person is interested in while leaving out the unpleasant aspects of the reality. Most roleplay falls into this category – kinks like sexual slavery or teacher/student focus on the sexual aspects and exclude the trauma, psychological harm, etc.

5. Remaking the pathways:
This is kinks that are directly for some badthing, but actually seek to play out the trauma, with the idea that replicating it in a safe and negotiated environment can be a help in dealing with the real world version. There are multiple ways this can happen: for instance, playing out a fear can take it from a Nothing is Scarier horror to something concrete and combatable. I’ve also seen it talked about how, on a psychological level, a major part of trauma is not being able to leave it behind because the brain keeps going down the same pathways, and recreating a similar situation on your own terms can rewrite over those pathways.

Thoughts on critical examination and ethical practices:

First, as noted, basically everything starts being problematic when it crosses the line into violating other people. So, for any kink as for anything else, ethical practices involve not doing that – playing consensually only, content warning erotica, etc.

Aside from that:

1, 2, and 5 share the common trait of being coping mechanisms. Coping mechanisms become problematic when people don’t realize that they are coping mechanisms. Critical examination and ethical practice with these kinks therefore means knowing that they are coping mechanisms, knowing what they are coping mechanisms for, and making the conscious decision as to whether or not to continue to use them as such.

4 is where most of my own kinks are (though the aspect I’m interested in is usually something like melodramatic nobility and not sexualness). Since this is my main area of experience, I want to do a separate writing on the value I see in this category of kinks. Critical examination and ethical practice with these kinks means noticing the romanticizing, noticing the aspects that are being left out, not confusing the romanticized version and the real version, and being committed and making an absolute effort not to let the romanticized version lead you to contributing more harm to the real version.

3 is the one I struggle with the most (I was going to write about that here, but it turned too long and also is its own topic, so I’m going to give it its own post instead). At the moment, where this puts me is: Critical examination and ethical practice with these kinks means noticing the bad paradigms they are dependent on, and being committed and making an absolute effort to reject these paradigms in real life.

When people have ethical objections to 3 and 4, it’s often with the idea that the fully ethical practice is impossible: it’s impossible to practice romanticized kinks and not have this be part of contributing more harm to the real version, and/or it’s impossible to reject a bad paradigm while practicing kinks that depend on it.

I’m not going to address the impossibility question, because to me it misses the point. Short of living in a utopia and seeing what happens then, there is no way to figure this out. In the world as it is, everyone contributes to the harm of real world badthings, everyone retains and perpetuates aspects of bad paradigms, and there’s no way to trace that back to a particular source with any kind of certainty.

As such, dealing with this to me is no different from dealing with living in such a world in general.

It means, for any area where I might contribute to harm, consciously answering the question, “remaining in congruence with my own morality and integrity, what can I and can’t I do?”. And it means addressing any specific harm I’m doing that I become aware of (whether myself or through someone else pointing it out).

Awesome.

I like cogent analysis, self-awareness, and lists. I really like this thoughtful exploration of some different sources from which our kinks (whether those kinks be “problematic” or not) might arise. And I especially like the concluding paragraph. :)

December 19, 2013
On Consent of the Birthed

I do not think you are capable of having a relationship with any life you create that does not in some way, at some time, harm that life or violate that entity’s autonomy. This isn’t because you are bad, it is because coercion is not inherently bad. Therefore, to do some things that you might call “good,” you have to do things that, in the doing, you would call “bad” by any other ethical standard. This is why meta-consent really matters, which is to say, this is why the ability to consent to violation is an important concept for beings-with-power to understand.

The difference when it comes to creating life is that the life-form you create can not even meta-consent to its existence. This is different from the situation in which two already-existing lifeforms can consent to experiences of violation.

In effect, creating life is itself the ultimate nonconsensual act.

This is not different than causing death. Causing death and causing life can both be massive violations of another being’s consent.

I disagree with the notion that creating life is an inherently non-consensual act. Sure, a nonexistent person can’t give permission, but a nonexistent person’s nonexistent autonomy can’t be violated, either. If we accept that consent is a felt sense, then it’s up to the created being, once that person comes into existence, to feel violated by or okay with their creator(s) bringing them into existence. Therefore, the act of creation, when considered as a possible future act, is neither consensual nor non-consensual—at worst we can say it is reckless, that the potential creator(s) risk doing something that will later turn out to have been non-consensual. Once created, if the created being feels that their creation was (non-)consensual, then the act of creation always and forever was (non-)consensual. I think this is crucial to the notion of consent as felt sense–it’s not just that you can take it back, it’s that you can redefine the meaning of the original act.

Consent as felt sense moves consent from a legalistic process of granting permission that occurs before an act to an introspective process of parsing emotions that occurs during and forever after an act. Although this broadly expands which individual actions can be considered violations, it also severely limits which types of actions can be considered always, categorically violative.

(Source: maymay)

December 18, 2013
I can’t afford to give to these organizations this year, but maybe you can.

I don’t feel guilty, exactly, but it still troubles me that I’m unable to help out these groups this year. Maybe one of you can, so here’s a short list of organizations that I wish I could give to.

December 8, 2013

New York Film Academy’s study of gender inequality in the film industry.

(Source: howtocatchamonster, via mostlysignssomeportents)

November 25, 2013

(Source: untitledscreenplays)

November 18, 2013
pandoradeloeste:

As Jesse Pinkman would say, “science, bitch!”

pandoradeloeste:

As Jesse Pinkman would say, “science, bitch!”

(Source: clutzycarlie, via absinthecocktail)

November 17, 2013

(Source: sonandheirofnothinginparticular, via skolita)

November 17, 2013

(Source: expertcosmotips, via underweartuesday)

November 17, 2013
francesetherealgumm:

overanalyticalqueer:

cryingalonewithfrankenstein:

This photo always cheers me up a bit. It’s a front-page article from 1955 about Christine Jorgensen, one of the first women to have sex-reassignment surgery.
Since the text is a bit small and I couldn’t find a larger copy, here’s what the small blurb says:
A World of a Difference

George W. Jorgensen, Jr., son of a Bronx carpenter, served in the Army for two years and was given honorable discharge in 1946. Now George is no more. After six operations, Jorgensen’s sex has been changed and today she is a striking woman, working as a photographer in Denmark. Parents were informed of the big change in a letter Christine (that’s her new name) sent to them recently.

This article is 58 years old, and it’s more respectful of Christine’s pronoun choices and name than some publications are today. It makes me happy to see a newspaper be respectful of a trans person’s choice of name and pronouns like that 

Ok, so, yes! It’s great that this article is respectful of Christine’s pronouns and uses neutral language to talk about her before her transition
however
the early reports of Christine’s story did this, as it turns out, primarily because Christine in interviews emphasized what she saw as her biological predisposition to be trans, leaving cis reporters with the impression that she was intersex. After invasive reporters got hold of her doctors and asked them a lot of questions, news stories about Christine changed their tone, many asking in the headlines if she was “really” a woman. The respect shown in this article is conditional—in America at this time, surgeries were routinely performed to “correct” intersex conditions but very rarely to help a trans person (in one of the cases where this did happen, the trans man in question convinced the doctor that sterilizing him through his hysterectomy/vaginectomy would be a boon to the world). European doctors had a different opinion, but the news stories of Christine rapidly slid downhill into interviews with American doctors who said that trans people, who they failed to distinguish from homosexuals, were psychopaths and that giving them surgery just fed their delusion. All this happened within a couple years of the first media storm.
Even before this happened, “Christine jokes” were becoming a popular tool in comedy—it was said that Christine’s performance partner was the only comedian in the nation not to make them. So here, you know, we witness the birth of transmisogynistic jokes as pop humor.
Christine stayed professional and composed throughout the period in which she was publicly harassed and scrutinized. Her tolerance for harassment was probably based on the realistic understanding that she could do nothing to stop it.
Christine said later that she received hundreds of thousands of messages from congratulatory or like-minded people; her transition/surgery brought with it the awareness that procedures like this existed and began an era in which American trans people for the first time were beginning to request access to surgery and hormones. However, as trans people in America became visible, we also became targets. And it was mostly trans women who were visible, because the public in the 1950s was much more fascinated by the sex appeal and ability to objectify women, as opposed to the 1930s, when ftm surgery had been more widely reported in medical journals and been the subject of pulp fiction. 
So yes, this article is great, but it should be understood in context. Transmisogyny followed very swiftly on the heels of any media attention given to trans people.

listen to hal

francesetherealgumm:

overanalyticalqueer:

cryingalonewithfrankenstein:

This photo always cheers me up a bit. It’s a front-page article from 1955 about Christine Jorgensen, one of the first women to have sex-reassignment surgery.

Since the text is a bit small and I couldn’t find a larger copy, here’s what the small blurb says:

A World of a Difference

George W. Jorgensen, Jr., son of a Bronx carpenter, served in the Army for two years and was given honorable discharge in 1946. Now George is no more. After six operations, Jorgensen’s sex has been changed and today she is a striking woman, working as a photographer in Denmark. Parents were informed of the big change in a letter Christine (that’s her new name) sent to them recently.

This article is 58 years old, and it’s more respectful of Christine’s pronoun choices and name than some publications are today. It makes me happy to see a newspaper be respectful of a trans person’s choice of name and pronouns like that 

Ok, so, yes! It’s great that this article is respectful of Christine’s pronouns and uses neutral language to talk about her before her transition

however

the early reports of Christine’s story did this, as it turns out, primarily because Christine in interviews emphasized what she saw as her biological predisposition to be trans, leaving cis reporters with the impression that she was intersex. After invasive reporters got hold of her doctors and asked them a lot of questions, news stories about Christine changed their tone, many asking in the headlines if she was “really” a woman. The respect shown in this article is conditional—in America at this time, surgeries were routinely performed to “correct” intersex conditions but very rarely to help a trans person (in one of the cases where this did happen, the trans man in question convinced the doctor that sterilizing him through his hysterectomy/vaginectomy would be a boon to the world). European doctors had a different opinion, but the news stories of Christine rapidly slid downhill into interviews with American doctors who said that trans people, who they failed to distinguish from homosexuals, were psychopaths and that giving them surgery just fed their delusion. All this happened within a couple years of the first media storm.

Even before this happened, “Christine jokes” were becoming a popular tool in comedy—it was said that Christine’s performance partner was the only comedian in the nation not to make them. So here, you know, we witness the birth of transmisogynistic jokes as pop humor.

Christine stayed professional and composed throughout the period in which she was publicly harassed and scrutinized. Her tolerance for harassment was probably based on the realistic understanding that she could do nothing to stop it.

Christine said later that she received hundreds of thousands of messages from congratulatory or like-minded people; her transition/surgery brought with it the awareness that procedures like this existed and began an era in which American trans people for the first time were beginning to request access to surgery and hormones. However, as trans people in America became visible, we also became targets. And it was mostly trans women who were visible, because the public in the 1950s was much more fascinated by the sex appeal and ability to objectify women, as opposed to the 1930s, when ftm surgery had been more widely reported in medical journals and been the subject of pulp fiction. 

So yes, this article is great, but it should be understood in context. Transmisogyny followed very swiftly on the heels of any media attention given to trans people.

listen to hal

(via absinthecocktail)