erotica cliches bingo
Oh shit, I think I bingoed with my old attempts at porn from the 1990s.
That reminds me, I need to put into my will, “Upon my death, my computer, my external hard drives, and all burned optical discs will be incinerated.”
I might have to ask Sailor Mac, but I think I may well have blacked out the board with mine…
…I don’t understand the “stretch and burn” one.
(Source: powerfulpistons)
You are for dinner. Any questions?
Unsurprisingly, it’s the caption that makes this for me. :P
lack of rights to vote means lack of right to determine where resources go and who has the say in what goes where. upholding white supremacy on the backs of trans* people, mostly of color.
In dramatic contrast to most mammals which have a relatively simple two-chromosome sex determination system, the platypus has a ten chromosome sex determination system. Yet unlike most alternate sex determination systems known to biology, the platypus system uses the same X and Y chromosomes as the common mammalian XY system — platypi simply have five pairs of sex chromosomes instead of one pair.
This means that, in theory, platypi may have as many as twenty-five distinct genetic sexes with different numbers of Xs and Ys. The (relatively) straightforward cases are female with five XX pairs and male with five XY pairs; at this point, scientists don’t know how any other potential combinations work or how common they may be.
And then there’s the queer platypus who’s like, “F*** the pentavigesimal, I do what I want.”
fun fact
completely excluding trans people from your sexual orientation is fucking cissexist AND HERE’S WHY:
This is the stupidest, rape culture, lesbophobic bullshit I have read on Tumblr in the last 20 seconds.Fuck OFF you prick! Lesbians don’t like dick.
PS - An inverted dick is not a vagina. http://scumorama.wordpress.com/2012/04/11/neo-vagina-or-second-asshole/
And being FEMALE is more than having a vagina. I am a lesbian, and I don’t want to date MALES.
Right. And some people are lesbians who are open to dating trans* women that you would call males. Anybody who’s trying to personally force you into personally dating or having sex with them is being rapey (or just plain being a rapist, in the latter case), but those labels doesn’t apply to someone (particularly another lesbian) who is arguing for a broader, more nuanced definition of lesbian than the one you want to shove down the throat of the world.
Lesbians are women who are attracted to women and who identify as lesbians. Yes, that definition is circular. And so is the definition of women. Guess what? That’s what happens when we’re talking about something like personal identity and experience rather than, say, math. The practice of mathematics or law sometimes requires us to imagine things being cut and dried, but thinking that life actually works that way is like looking at a two dimensional map and thinking it’s the world.
How is it that I just woke up from a seriously disturbed sleep, and I can STILL see the logical fallacy here?
Anybody who’s trying to personally force you into personally dating or having sex with them is being rapey
Good, we agree on this…
So why are you supporting
completely excluding trans people from your sexual orientation is fucking cissexist
The OP has bahhhleeted their post, but even from the blurb that remains, you can see they’re going to try and make a case for the fact that all lesbians should be open to having sex with trans* women.Which, Alexandraerin, meets the criteria for “forcing someone into personally dating or having sex with” someone, or else.
So, how are you able to hold those two positions simultaneously? You know they contradict themselves?some people are lesbians who are open to dating trans* women that you would call males
That’s nice! Good for them, you do you, etc. Whatever floats their boat and makes them happy. Seriously.
But even that contradicts your argument.
The Cotton Ceiling rhetoric you’re rolling with claims that trans* women are desexualized and considered “unfuckable”, which is why the whole seminar/theory exists in the first place—- but you’re also saying that some people are open to dating trans women.
So which is it?
Are trans* women not getting any, or are they getting some, just like the rest of the world?
And if the latter, why all the to-do?who is arguing for a broader, more nuanced definition of lesbian than the one you want to shove down the throat of the world
Nice imagery, first off. Not overly aggressive at all!
Not to mention that since the outcry to the Cotton Ceiling has been reactionary, (ie: “Please dont tell us who we should and should not be attracted to”), I’m not quite sure whose definition of lesbian is getting shoved where.Just pointing that one out for you. Maybe you missed it.
Yes, that definition is circular. And so is the definition of women. Guess what? That’s what happens when we’re talking about something like personal identity
Okay, so a question for you: Why are you and yours entitled to your Personal Identity without critique, but it’s apparently open season on the identity of a specific subset of lesbians who have found they experience minimal/no attraction to X group?
For example, in my manifestation of sexual identity, I am not attracted to:
-punks
because I don’t find the aesthetic appealing, I don’t find that our overall interests/goals match up and punks just don’t get me moist. So what? Am I punkphobic now? Should I be castigated into ‘broadening my horizons’?
For a lot of people, it’s the same deal. Not everyone’s into everyone—and if that’s their “personal identity”, then who are you to say it’s wrong?The practice of mathematics or law sometimes requires us to imagine things being cut and dried, but thinking that life actually works that way is like looking at a two dimensional map and thinking it’s the world.
Bolding’s mine, for emphasis.
So, map analogy aside, what you’re trying to say is that issues of sexual attraction and identity aren’t as cut and dry as all that—and I would like to (disrespectfully, since I think your argument is bunk and nonsense) disagree.
Again, you’re turning into the identity police. If someone’s identity is set in stone, or “cut and dry”, then you have no right to tell them that it’s wrong. Likewise, if you translate this (and other cotton ceiling rhetoric), you get to the same root as
“But if you’ve never tried dick, how do you know you don’t like it?”, which as I’m sure you’re aware is a favourite of skeevy hetero guys everywhere.
So here’s a question for you:
Tell me why any lesbian should have to “open her mind and interrogate her desire” (cotton ceiling rhetoric, nearly verbatim), any more than she should have to ride a dick to discover she doesn’t like them after all.
There’s no difference in rhetoric whatsoever; someone doesn’t like X, and someone else is trying to change their mind/guilt trip them into it. I don’t like that rhetoric when it comes from men, and I definitely don’t like it when its coming from the lesbian community.
The supposed fallacies you’re poking at are riddled with faulty assumptions and fale equivalencies.
No, I’m not turning into the identity police. I’m arguing against identity police. “Excluding trans* women from the lesbian sexual orientation” means refusing to acknowledge trans* women or their female partners as lesbians. That’s straight-up identity policing.
A trans* woman is attracted to/dates only women, she says she’s a lesbian. Radical feminists come along and say “NO YOU’RE NOT”.
That’s identity policing.
If the trans* woman said “I am a lesbian AND THEREFORE YOU MUST HAVE SEX WITH ME”, that would be rapey.
But literally no one’s saying that.
I know that it pleases you to imagine the “cotton ceiling” seminar (the term is a terrible one and you won’t find me defending it anywhere) consisted of a seminar where a bunch of men in dresses conspired to get into your panties, but since that’s not what it was, I can’t really engage in a discussion about its good points or bad points with you.
There’s no contradiction in my stance. You just refuse to distinguish between an argument that the lesbian identity can encompass trans* women and attraction to trans* women (not my argument to make since I’m not a lesbian, but there are lesbians making that argument), and an argument that you personally must have sex with trans* women, the pre-oppier the better.
And you object to my “shove down the throat” imagery? I don’t want to get into sticks-and-stones territory, but your side started that when you decided to cast the assertion of personal identity by a trans* lesbian as a rape attempt.
(Source: pymparticle)
I don’t know why you’d want to. Maybe you’re a biologist? The point is that biology is something we can talk about. We could talk about the nature of chromosomes and the most common ways in which they’re expressed. Okay. That is certainly a topic that can be discussed. It’s not a topic I find compelling, but different strokes for different folks.
But then you want to talk about rights? About roles? About social and personal boundaries?
That’s not biology.
Those aren’t biological concepts.
They aren’t biological concerns.
(And when somebody wants to talk about rights in terms of chromosomes, you should run away from them very, very quickly.)
Does a music festival have chromosomes? Does a shelter have chromosomes? Do sisterhood and solidarity have chromosomes?
As soon as you start talking about “females” banding together, carving out a safe space, carving out respect, carving out rights… you’re no longer talking about biology. You have left the realm of the biological and the genetic in the dust.
You can presume that people have a certain chromosomal structure or not, but what you’re talking about doesn’t flow from that structure. What has brought those people together isn’t a twist in their genes, but a shared identity, a similar sense of self.
Which is why you’re not talking about “females” butwomen.
You’re not talking about a breeding population of specimens of an animal species. In technical terms, yes, we’re animals, but when you’re talking about rights and protections and spaces and boundaries you aren’t talking about biology or zoology or taxonomy, you are talking about humans in terms of people… and people aren’t biology.
Gender is a construct, you say? In the sense that it does not exist in the same tangible plane as cells and genes, yes, you could say it is. The same is true for the rights you want to talk about. The same is true for the concept of safety and security. Biological security is not imperiled by the same things as personal security. Genes have their own imperatives. Biology has its own imperatives.
If we’re going to have a conversation that’s framed entirely in terms of biology and genetics and not people… well, genetics don’t care about consent, for one thing. Biology has nothing to say about the autonomy of a person carrying a fetus. Biology doesn’t provide the need or basis or right for a safe space.
Talk about biology all you want, if that’s what you’re interested in. Maybe if you have enough conversations about it you’ll learn that it’s more complicated than the sections of your junior high textbook that you read conveyed. Maybe you won’t.
You can talk about the human race in terms of males and females when you’re talking about matters of biology. It’s reductive and it’s rude, but you can do it and make at least a kind of sense.
But when you want to talk about rights, you’re not talking about genes any more. You’ve entered the realm of the “construct”… the intangible, the notional, the things that make us human beings and not just fragile, slow-growing animals with horribly damaging posture for a quadruped and massively inefficient resource-hogging brains where all our instincts and stuff should be.
TL;DR - Anybody who says they’re talking about “females” and “males” not “women” and “men” because biology isn’t talking about anything that has bearing on anything other than biology. If you want to talk about human rights, you need to talk about human beings, not chromosomes.
- “I’m insulted”: You shouldn’t be. I’m a massive slut. It’s for everyone’s safety.
- “It’s not metal”: Get out of my bed.
- “I can’t stay hard in one”: Oh, guess I can’t get wet for you.
- “Risk is fun”: No, sex is fun.
- “I’m allergic to latex”: Good thing I have latex free ones.
- “They don’t fit”: Good thing I have magnums.
- “Whisky dick”: No.
- “It doesn’t feel as good”: Don’t care.
- “Why don’t you trust me?”: Why the fuck do you trust me?
- “Even for blow jobs”: You bet your ass even for blow jobs.
- “But I got tested”: Show me the paperwork, not to mention some things don’t show up for six months.
- “But I pull out.”: You’ve missed the point.
- “I don’t like them”: I don’t like you.
- “Are you that slutty?”: Yep.
This is my new 10 Commandments right here. Yes I’m aware there’s more than 10 :P
Straight up my rules of thumb. No glove, no love nigga.
…if someone actually said “It’s not metal” to me, I’d tell them to go find one that is and try it on.
Sex is no more an immutable binary than is gender. There are intersex people who are born with non-binary genitalia, as I have already mentioned. There are people with hormonal anomalies. In fact, hormone levels vary wildly within the categories of cis male and cis female. Chromosomes, too, vary. If you thought “XX” and “XY” were the only two possible combinations, you have some serious googling to do. In addition to variations like XXY, XXYY, or X, sometimes cis people find out that they are genetically the “opposite” of what they though they were– that is, a ‘typical’ cis man can be XX, a ‘normal’ cis woman can be XY.
The fact is that the concept of binary sex is based on the fallacious idea that multiple sex characteristics are immutable and must always go together, when in fact many of them can be changed, many erased, and many appear independently in different combinations. “Female” in sex binary terms means having breasts, having a vagina, having a womb, not having a lot of body hair, having a high-pitched voice, having lots of estrogen, having a period, having XX chromosomes. “Male” means having a penis, not having breasts, producing sperm, having body hair, having a deep voice, having lots of testosterone, having XY chromosomes. Yet it is possible to isolate, alter, and remove many of these traits. Many of these traits do not always appear together, and before puberty and after menopause, many of them do not apply.
Asher Bauer (via inherhipstheresrevolutions)
Everyone, read this. The male/female body dichotomy is a myth.
(via dearcissexism)
(Source: lipsredasroses)
I think this man is fascinating and I would love to sit in on one of his classes. If you aren’t familiar with Hugo, this a great interview that will give you some backstory and history to the man. You will also notice from his answers, how incredibly well-spoken and articulate he is (not particularly one of my strong suits so I admire it that much more). I can’t wait for Part II.
~Madison Montgomery~
So.You’re OK with him sleeping with lots of his female students which is completely unethical (as well as dubiously consensual given the power differential). Did you know that he tried to murder his girlfriend ? Just putting that out there
http://www.hugoschwyzer.net/2011/01/03/what-you-need-to-remember-what-you-need-to-forget-on-self-acceptance-after-doing-something-truly-awful/
And also read the follow-up post he made today where he talks about how he regrets hastily making the post (after clearing it with his lawyer) in such a way that he came off looking like an asshole when he meant to look like a saint.
