Latest Posts by monsteradarling - Page 5

Not quite garden related, but look how pretty these newly unfurled leaves are.

I'm sorry, but I genuinely can't read this. I have absolutely no idea what you're attempting to say, so I'll explain my point of view and reasoning a little more clearly.

If asexuality is a sexuality, it would be short and sweet to understand. Sexuality is very simple that way. There don't need to be other caveats. Lesbians are women who are only attracted to other women. Straight people are only attracted to the opposite sex. Bisexuals can be attracted to either sex. Therefore, as a valid sexuality, asexuals would be unable to be attracted to either sex.

If asexuality is nothing but a spectrum of "utterly sex repulsed" to "fine with sex with someone I love," then that isn't a sexuality, that's personal preference over physical intimacy and intercourse, and to compare it to the oppression of marginalised sexualities is entirely wrong.

The reason that I bring up misogyny around asexuality is there are a lot of women who feel so pressured to be sexual that they think that having the label of "asexual" will protect them and separate them from others who they believe are much more content with a ton of sex. That they're conflicted about some same-sex attraction, and hide behind asexuality. That they were abused and use asexuality to protect themselves. Romance has been destroyed by the normalisation of hookup culture to the point that there are women who believe that wanting to wait and form a connection with someone else before any intimacy is asexuality and therefore pathological, which is down to misogyny and pornification of the world around us.

I think that the comparison to aspec and nonbinary is accurate, because there is no such thing as being "biromantic heterosexual." As a bisexual, it's incredibly offensive. It's either a bisexual who's so in pain over their sexuality that they've been made to feel that they have to bury it under a different label, or a straight person who thinks that caring deeply for someone of the same sex entitles them to our space.

You cannot have your cake and eat it with wishy-washy, meaningless words.

For the record, trans people are not inherently "queer." They're men and women. I still hear "queer" being used as a slur, and will never accept it.

As a feminist, I believe that women should have the right to be able to say that they never want sex again. If a relationship is fulfilling without sex, amazing. I am personally uninterested in sex right now, if that helps. I'm also uninterested in hearing about how much or how little sex anyone else is having - aside from criticising kink and prostitution etc.

I will always support someone who says that they are asexual, as in, "I do not feel attraction to either women or men, that is how I was made," but I can't take any other kind of "asexuality" seriously. It doesn't make sense at all.

If it really is just a bunch of people claiming to be oppressed and navel-gazing over nothing more than how much or how little sexual intimacy they have in their relationships, then they need to grow up and find a hobby. I remember seeing a billion different versions of "demisexual demigirl" back in the day, and I don't know how it isn't just nonbinary but make it sexuality flavoured.

I really dislike radfems hating on asexuals. Not desiring sex is deviant from what is expected of society, whether among the right or the left (yes, even among radfems and it's quite obvious). There's a level of sex negativity that is encouraged in these spaces (don't have sex with men), but people taking it further upsets you (because you're a woman with the same desire for sex as the men you dislike). I will always support asexuality and acespec identities. If you want sex positivity in any form and don't want those "annoying asexuals" to bother you, just go outside. Stop acting like your stance on sex is not a mainstream opinion

that post is really upsetting me.

i loved my wife when she was identifying as trans, and i also love her now that she isn’t. some of my closest friends are butch lesbians who went through with some degree of medical transition and then made the choice to pull back for various reasons. they detransitioned and every single one of them is still gender non conforming and still cares deeply about their trans friends.

the idea that all detrans women are reactionary grifters is so misogynistic, homophobic, and insidious. yet another way the trans movement ostracizes ftm people and silences their voices. by fucking villainizing them. all while refusing to hold any mtf abuser or grifter accountable. unreal.

and the messages my wife and my detrans friends on here have to deal with every week … people fetishizing their detransition, speculating “you’re probably balding now” (because the worst thing a woman can be is ugly, of course), telling them “you’ll go back” and saying “death before detransition”. it hurts me so bad to see lesbian women being treated like criminals for the “crime” of trying to cope with their sexuality and their dysphoria in a lesbophobic society. why is it impossible to show these women empathy? they’re not the fucking enemy! remember who the real enemy is!

Two people are standing in front of you. One is male, and says “I want to share a space with her”. The other is female, and says “I don’t want to share a space with him”.

Think: Which person do you listen to? Which person’s desires do you care more about? Which person’s preferences do you think are more important? Which person’s boundaries do you think are less important? Which person do you think is more important, and which person do you think is less important? Why?

I think that it's because asexuality is to sexuality as gender identity is to sex.

There's no consensus on what asexuality even is.

If it's a sexuality, then it would be the simple state of not being attracted to either sex, the direct opposite to bisexuality, and then it's fair to discuss oppression, invisibility etc.

If it's a spectrum of whether someone is sex repulsed to someone who only enjoys sex after having a deep connection with someone else, then the real issues here are misogyny and pornification, since women tend to be the ones that claim some form of asexuality over men, and the idea of "I'm asexual because I need to form a connection to someone else emotionally before desiring sex and can't just fuck a stranger at a club like everyone else" is the definition of a pornified society. That also means that it's not a sexuality and it's wrong to conflate it with sexuality.

I personally can't see how asexuality can be both, but hearing "asexuality and aspec identities" does sound just like a sexuality version of people calling themselves "nonbinary."

I really dislike radfems hating on asexuals. Not desiring sex is deviant from what is expected of society, whether among the right or the left (yes, even among radfems and it's quite obvious). There's a level of sex negativity that is encouraged in these spaces (don't have sex with men), but people taking it further upsets you (because you're a woman with the same desire for sex as the men you dislike). I will always support asexuality and acespec identities. If you want sex positivity in any form and don't want those "annoying asexuals" to bother you, just go outside. Stop acting like your stance on sex is not a mainstream opinion

Women saying "no."

What do you think pisses males off the most?

Like Velvet...

Bristol, Vermont

I hate that every time I see "Be kind" now, I see "Be quiet".

It makes so much more sense now why its geared primarily towards women.

We always have to sit with our discomfort. Just shut up and go with it, regardless of how you feel.

I think we’re getting lost in the weeds if we start distinguishing between good (morally acceptable) and bad (selfish and vain) reasons to use a surrogate. 

Surrogacy, as a practice, is exploitative and unacceptable. It doesn’t matter why you’re treating another woman (likely a much poorer woman) like a broodmare because there is no acceptable reason to do so. It makes no difference if you’re doing it because you cannot become pregnant yourself, or because pregnancy would cause life-threatening complications for you, or simply because you don’t have the time or inclination to endure a pregnancy yourself. It’s all the same thing. It’s all exploitation.

Being a radical feminist doesn’t mean you get to hate libfems or any other type of woman for that matter. Are libfems annoying? Do they have bad takes? Do I believe that their ideas are harmful? YES. But I’m not going to scream that they deserve death like I’ve seen other people do on here.

Maybe a girl isn’t ready to dissect the reasons why she feels the need to shave. I’m not going to call her a fucking idiot. I’m not going to call her worthless. Because she’s not. Why has it become common practice in radfem spaces to hate fellow women for falling into the beliefs that they’ve been groomed to have?

When a radfem talks overtly harshly about other women it tells me that they live within an online echo chamber. Women in real life have bad takes. They have internalized misogyny. Some radfems take for granted the knowledge and strength that they have. Not every woman has read feminist theory. Not every woman is confident enough to advocate for her rights. Women in real life are complicated and possess a mixture or both good and bad traits. No matter what, these women are worth defending and fighting for. They didn’t choose to be conditioned by the patriarchy.

I likely won’t get along with most women, but that’s fine. I’m not a radical feminist because i hate other women, I’m a feminist because to an extent i harbor a deep love for ALL women

"But some women fantasise about sexy priests!"

Those women imagine attractive men wearing ordinary priest clothes. There isn't some obvious and acceptable g-string with a priest's collar around it swapped in. The fantasised priests are just... attractive, romanticised priests.

The whole point of nuns being sexualised, as far as I understand it, is the transgressing of boundaries (as above), the male obsession with owning and touching and fucking an underlined-capitalised-bolded virgin, and/or their need to fantasise that those pious nuns will take one look at that one specific man and suddenly turn into a nymphomaniac for him.

Maybe the message was "Ha, I'm not straight like religion tells me I should be! This is me being sexy and breaking free!" but it just underlines what men want anyway and upholds that the likes of nuns are some minor, sexy taboo for men.

Nothing is or can be subverted when it's sexualised, because the only message that men understand is I can jerk off to this.

Re: Chappell Roan’s nun stuff and the sexualization of nuns

I do not think a religion itself is owed any kindness or respect. I don’t think the misogynistic practices of these religions are sacred or deserve to be treated as though they’re immune from criticism and mockery.

However, I also do understand that nuns and similar religious roles are held by women who don the outfit and play the role because they have a commitment to their religion that includes sexual purity (whether brainwashed or not… though probably brainwashed a bit). I think the sexual mockery of a woman or a group of women who indicate their desire to not be seen sexually is weird. I believe even religious women are owed respect for their sexual boundaries. And the main fetish surrounding sexualizing nuns is that it is a clear violation of sexual boundaries and consent. That is the part that needs to be understood. The sexualization of nuns is because it is enticing to cross the set sexual boundaries of a woman. And the woman being religious can either add to the fetish (in the eyes of men) or it can be a defense against criticism, i.e. “I thought we hated Christianity but nuns are somehow off-limits?” (‘Religion-critical’ leftists).

I just don’t agree with the premise. I truly do think it’d be a whole different scenario if it were a religious role being sexualized that wasn’t about sexual purity. If that makes sense. Like the issue with the nun sexualization is that the whole fetish surrounding sexy nuns is that it is sexualizing a woman who doesn’t want to be sexualized. If it wasn’t a nun, but it was a random female celebrity who was being highly sexualized after she made it clear she didn’t want to be sexualized, I’d say the same thing.

Does this make sense? I’m at urgent care rn and im struggling to focus

a woman will see a game about raping women and be like "wow, its absolutely disgusting that someone made a game about raping women, i dont think a game platform should be selling a game about raping women" and people online will scream at her and call her a pro-censorship puritan fascist

I also hate that criticism of this is supposed hatred of bisexual women who have felt attraction to 99 women, but attraction to only 1 man ever in their entire lives, or like it's hatred of the same-sex attraction side of being bisexual.

It's frustrating because a lot of bisexual women have connected their sexuality to their activism, like falsely announcing that they're attracted to every single woman ever is somehow the same as being feminist.

Everyone with any sense knows those bisexual women are lying. Whether it's a lie to themselves to try and self-soothe over hating that they're bisexual, or whether it's to try and protect themselves from accusations of being male-centric in some way, it doesn't do anything but hurt themselves - and other bisexual women - in the long run.

Bisexual women who say "I'm attracted to all women and one man" are so cringe. It's just virtue signalling. And trying to compensate for the supposed negative of being male-attracted.

Pedro pascal calling JK Rowling a loser fucking pissed me off so bad and people were praising him (majority women!!!!!). I hate that dude so bad, he's only at this level of fame because he's a man.

I AGREE ‼️‼️🔥🔥🗣🗣🗣

Men have to do the barest minimum of "oho yes people I ALSO think bad thing of the month is bad ☝️" and men as a whole will get the benefit of women screaming and crying and saying he's just so smol and squishable and matureeee (read: father figure).

Honestly whenever a man leans into his public image of being... all of that, I get suspicious 😒 genuinely never failed me yet.

t4t as in terf4terf

There is the generalized, traditional fear of female sexuality. Further, there is discomfort with the similarity, with the common origin, of the female clitoris and the male penis. Women are used to hearing the clitoris described as an "undeveloped penis"; men are not used to thinking of the penis as an overdeveloped clitoris. Finally, and most seriously, there is a profound psychological and institutional reluctance to face the repercussions of the fact that the female clitoris is the only organ in the human body whose purpose is exclusively that of erotic stimulation and release. What does this mean? It means that for the human female, alone among all earth's life-forms, sexuality and reproduction are not inseparable. It is the male penis, carrier of both semen and sexual response, that is simultaneously procreative and erotic. If we wanted to reduce one of the sexes to a purely reproductive function, on the basis of its anatomy (we don't), it would be the male sex that qualified for such a reduction, not the female. Not the human female.

But these are only biological facts. These are only biological realities. As we know, facts and realities can be, and are, systematically ignored in the service of established ideologies. Throughout the world today virtually all religious, cultural, economic, and political institutions stand, where they were built centuries ago, on the solid foundation of an erroneous concept. A concept that assumes the psychic passivity, the creative inferiority, and the sexual secondariness of women. This enshrined concept states that men exist to create the human world, while women exist to reproduce humans. Period. If we argue that data exists—not solely biological, but archaeological, mythological, anthropological, and historical data—which refutes the universality of this erroneous concept, we are told to shut up; because something called "God" supports the erroneous concept, and that's all that matters. That's the final word.

—Monica Sjöö & Barbara Mor, "The Great Cosmic Mother: Rediscovering the Religion of the Earth."

rinie_fotografie

i don't think it's correct to call any conservatives gender-critical. they may be critical of transgenderism as a concept, but not for the same reasons that feminists are critical of gender itself. they see it as just another form of icky non-conformity, rather than the logical endpoint of all the sexist stereotypes they promote.

National Biways (Aug/Sep, 1994)

‼️Good news for today‼️

Polish trans people will no longer have to literally SUE THEIR PARENTS to get their gender marker changed!

This is huge!!!

Deliciosa

“feminists would rather be wage slaves than care for their husband and children” so instead of being a wage slave i get to be a maid for a wage slave. wow thats awesome

bisexual women did you know you can just.. prioritize yourselves? you dont exist to be the lgbt foot soldiers. you dont have to defer to non-bisexual people's ideas about your experiences. you can dedicate your time and energy to things that concern specifically bisexual women it's fine it's not a sin

Weird question but since you're bi and not dating men, do you still allow yourself to fancy them?

Absolutely! I feel zero guilt for feelings of attraction. I spent way too long feeling awful for being bisexual to play that game. If I see a man I find attractive, I enjoy the sight. I don’t pursue relationships with men because of the risks related to domestic relationships with them, but if a hot guy is in a movie? If I see an attractive man at the park? I don’t try and police the natural attraction I feel. Nor do I feel guilty.

Same with women. I no longer torture myself for seeing a beautiful woman and feeling attracted to her. It’s not automatically predatory or objectifying to just feel my feelings. Nor is it a betrayal of my politics or lifestyle to feel attraction to men.