“Mark can’t get raped by Anissa because all men like sex,” I gonna need you to delete every social media account you have, go outside, talk to real people, and never use a smartphone for the rest of your life.

Has it ever occurred to you that you depict Hiccup as far weaker, effeminate, submissive and frail than canon to feed stereotypical strong man dominating weak man seme/uke fuel?

What the actual fucking hell is this ask?

Has it ever occurred to you that being a bottom doesn’t make you effeminate?

Has it ever occurred to you that being raped doesn’t make you effeminate?

Has it ever occurred to you that feeling pain and showing emotion doesn’t make you effeminate?

You can fuck all the way off with that attitude. What a disgusting ask to send.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

exclusionists saying they dont want ace discourse to come back bc it's "annoying" and "childish" or whatever is so... like, okay man. personally i don't want it to come back bc the amount of death and rape threats i've gotten for being aspec has significantly decreased since it stopped being trendy to openly mock us. and i'd like being aspec online to be a little bit safer for as long as possible. but sorry aspecs rightfully existing in queer spaces and asking not to be harassed is annoying to you, i guess. that sounds really hard to deal with.

"i hope you get into a clown car accident involving hammers" <- worse than death and rapes threats according to staff.

because it's directed at them and not marginalized people on their website :)

How is the cult from Midsommer white supremacist? Because they are swedish and borrow from paganism? The nazis appropriated Norse culture, they even misused different runes and symbols, and Scandinavia is one of the most tolerant regions in Europe.

There's Nazi imagery throughout the film, & the fact that all the poc die first is no mistake. Ari Aster himself has said that the Harga are White Supremacists:

Defying an outdated horror trope, Aster does not kill off Josh (William Jackson Harper) — the only black character for miles — first. As Aster points out, though, the Hårga are racist, a callback to “a part of Swedish history and European history,” and all of the “outsiders” or “new blood” recruited for mating are purposely white.

“He’s thrown away in a way that the other members of the main cast are not," Aster notes. “And that is because these people have no further use for him.”

The Harga, when not inbreeding with each other, go out and groom new members to either 1. Be sacrified or 2. Introduce new genes by manipulating people into the cult or drugging & raping them (what they did to Dani & Christian), & they ONLY pick white people for this. There are no nonwhite Harga & that's not an accident.

The script also makes it crystal clear that the nonwhite couple were specifically chosen (bc they are not white) & brought there to be sacrificed & were never going to live. The member that brought the nonwhite couple displays hatred & malice towards them when they're not looking, but doesn't do this with the other white outsiders

(Ingemar is the Harga that brought Connie & Simon, the nonwhite couple). Connie & Simon didn't do anything wrong, they didn't do anything outright to insult the Harga. The only thing they did was be shocked about seeing the ritual suicide & express desire to leave (and they weren't the only ones who did this, Dani also did). And yet they were some of the first to die.

Even the visuals-- the Harga wear all White, it's always in blinding daylight. Whiteness is a GLARING theme. There's also foreshadowing early on in the film, where a book titled "The secret Nazi language of the Uthark" featured in Christian's room just before they go to Sweden.

There's also other Nazi ideology present within the Harga, such as the strict gender roles (the women all wear dresses & cook & clean & care for the children together but the men butcher the bear together), eugenics & ableism (the elderly are killed off at a certain age because they see disability & needing to be cared for as an elder "shameful", which is what one Harga states at the ritual suicide scene, & of course killing off the nonwhite characters), the "return to tradition" ideology (there are NO modern technology in the community, & it's in the countryside).

You see a cult full of ONLY White people, using Norse paganism (something VERY popular with Nazis) in an isolated area, who routinely murder poc, don't intermix with poc, kill off their elderly, Dani (the blonde, light eyed white girl) is praised for her beauty & made their May queen by the Harga, with strict gender roles, & this film was made by a JEWISH MAN to show the Harga as the bad guys, & you don't have a hunch that the Harga are maybe supposed to be white supremacists/nazis? That doesn't raise any red flags for you?

& let's not forget how Scandanavia committed genocide against the Saami, the Indigenous population who were there for hundreds of years before anyone else. That's a little off topic, but as a First Nations Canadian I aint gunna let that just go unacknowledged. Scandanavia has a white supremacy problem too, & Ari Aster is right for pointing it out

if you call people "baeddels" who do not call themselves baeddels (or openly agree with/defend them by name, at absolute minimum), I am taking you by the shoulders and turning you firmly towards "TIRF".

baeddelism is a very specific movement and group. the ideology is based on radical feminism, and falls under that umbrella, but it doesn't encompass all of trans-inclusive radical feminism by default.

if you encounter someone espousing baeddel-like ideas, who doesn't appear to know what a baeddel actually is (or who openly denies ascribing to or agreeing with their ideas), you can just call them what they are: a radical feminist. specifically, a trans-inclusive radical feminists.

we have a word for it. we don't need to invoke a rape cult to talk about it. please.

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

It’s cheesy, it’s corny, it’s straight up schlock, it’s based around some of my personal deepest fears, and you can read the first chapter here LINK

Given the visuals I feel like it’s important to say up front that there won’t be any rape or gore in the story. There will be sex eventually because what is schlock without sex but it will all be between consenting adults (I won’t even be playing around with “dubcon” or Stockholm syndrome) and while there’s plenty of body modification and body horror all the gore happens while people are sedated meaning we don’t see it and they don’t feel it. Besides that this is horror so expect all the triggers. I will be tagging all chapters as “kentauer comic” so you can filter it out completely if this isn’t your cup of tea.

But yeah, this is the fucked-up schlocky horror comic I’ve been talking about. Don’t try to work out the science. It’s less scientifically accurate than Frankenstein’s Monster, which was a huge inspiration for this. What if you woke up one day having lost all rights to your humanity because some mad scientist had decided to make you their newest creation? Not in an attempt to make you better or advance humanity but just because they wanted to test their own abilities, effectively making you worse in the process.

Originally I only planned for this to be ten or twenty pages total so unlike my other comics it will be a contained story with an end.

Radfems commonly ask "What did J.K. Rowling do wrong besides say that 'woman' is a real biological category?" as a 'gotcha' and, well...

(referencing Matt Walsh's documentary, 'What is a Woman')

this is matt walsh (skip to 1:30)

If you don't want to click the link, this is where he says that girls are "most fertile" at 17 and that getting pregnant at 16 was the norm throughout history and that "teen pregnancy" isn't a real problem, only unwed pregnancy.

This is Matt Walsh's blog post explaining exactly what he thinks of feminism.

This is another post explaining what Matt Walsh thinks of feminism.

This is what Matt Walsh's twitter says

(Yes, he self-identified as a fascist on Twitter back when the interaction with JKR took place.)

If J.K. Rowling agrees with Matt Walsh on 'what a woman is,' she is anti-feminist, misogynistic scum.

Have to be honest though, if you argue that some people might just have to die if terrorists are "using them as shields," well I do in fact hope you drop dead and I fucking hate you, I wish I could guillotine you myself actually, yet if you were the victim in that "human shield" situation I'd actually still fucking demand your safe return because that shouldn't FUCKING be the reason anybody ever dies anywhere on Earth.

I don't care if Adolf himself crawls back out of hell and tries to hide from gunfire behind some random passing civilian. I don't care if that civilian turns out to be a murderous rapist we have to put on trial and execute anyway; if they can in any way be considered a bystander dragged into the line of fire against their will then I do not forgive the military pig who had no idea who they were shooting through to get to the "bad guy." And we aren't even talking about literal human shields. That's a deliberately misleading buzzword. That's propaganda. "Human shield" is being used in the current genocide to mean people anywhere within even miles of where they say a tErRoRiSt might be hiding. Fuck you if you've repeated that scum sucking bullshit. If a serial killer hides "somewhere" in your neighborhood you did not just become their "human shield" you maniac. I genuinely hope you fry in hell if you're making those arguments and yet I would still put my own life on the line to save you from another government's bombs if it came down to it. My opinion is that you would not deserve it but your life is automatically more precious than my opinion. That's how society is supposed to work you stupid piece of shit.

I think porn is driving rapes and assault. I read a stat about sexual assault prevelance amount different generations of women, and older women had a lower instance of sexual violence. And maybe they’re less likely to report it, but I think it’s accurate. Every woman I know my age has dealt with sexual violence to some extent but I remember my boomer mother thinking it was rare and that she never experienced it. And as time went on and I experienced more male violence, I became more confused how she was able to dodge violence for years. But now, I think the proportion of sexual violence has simply risen. I think men/boys having porn in their pockets 24/7 has made their aggression and violence worse. The boys I knew in school would share such graphic images with each other in class that would’ve been unattainable before. But now with just a working cell phone, they can access a library of gore and violence in an instant.

Fictional characters are to antis what "the unborn" are to pro-lifers.

Fictional characters, like the fetus, are the epitome of everything good the anti/pro-lifers wants to demonstrate on their crusade. They're uncomplicated. They're abstract. They are exactly what the arguer thinks they are in that moment. They will never disagree with the arguer and never make demands of their own.

Pro-lifers rarely help born people, and in fact gleefully call for the deaths of born people, because born people make demands, and have their own free wills, and sometimes make mistakes. The unborn will always be a perfect being, a tragedy, a what could have been; "what if the baby you aborted could have cured cancer?"

Antis rarely care for real people, and in fact often gleefully abuse them for disagreeing with their stances, because real people make demands, have their own free wills, and sometimes make mistakes. Fictional characters will always be perfect, and a tragedy, and a what-if; "what if the fictional character knew you shipped them with a literal child?"

Fictional characters are a way for antis to "care" about abuse/rape without actually confronting the reality that abuse survivors, as with anyone else, are messy people who have flaws and don't agree on any one issue. Just as fetuses are a way for pro-lifers to control the abortion debate with an image that is solely about shallow, unearned pathos, and never about the beings that currently occupy this world.

Both are the weak attempts of a person who likes the IDEA of doing/being good, but not the actual work that goes into making the world a better place. You can see it in how they react to anyone who disagrees with them with unrestrained vitriol and hatred. It isn't about "protecting life" or "protecting abuse/rape victims", but about being SEEN as someone who wants to protect life or protect rape/abuse victims.

Sorry for the long ask but I had this thought a while ago and wanted to share it.

Oh yeah they’re very similar mindsets