and you really shouldn’t be bragging about inventing completely nebulous and pointless terms liek “sensual attraction”. and if you don’t think you’re conciously choosing to be part of and in fact one of the most amusing members of the internet asexual community well then
Metapianycist, you must be doing something right.
yes, having a bunch of smart people laughing at you for making up needless categories of ‘attraction’ so you can avoid identifying as ‘seuxal’ in anyway is TOTALLY doing it right.
or is that just grudge i smell?
Fun fact: you don’t have to use the phrase “sensual attraction” to describe your experiences if you don’t want to, especially because it’s a term that is virtually useless outside of asexual communities and aromantic communities.
Also, I doubt you, even in your nearly infinite wisdom, know more about my experiences than I do, so kindly fuck off and let me label my experiences with regard to attraction and relationships as I see fit.
[cut badly drawn gif]
lol i got schooled by a badly drawn gif
oh shit guys what do i do
Shouldn’t the bolded be a clue that these discreet categories of attraction are, in fact, total bullshit created by weirdo internet shut-ins in a bizarre attempt to categorize their normal sexual desires as something more high-brow than the mindless lust of the “sexuals”?
Right? Why would these terms be useless outside of the ace community if they are in fact valid concepts?
But why did you cut the pic
It is the best thing I’ve ever seen on the internet
it took me a moment to realize that said “fucks” and not “fucus”, because for all I know maybe a fucu is what happens when you act on your sensual attraction
This is a quote from an actual historical document. You can have a problem with the wording but I have a serious problem with you erasing these women’s words. That’s really not ok.
I didn’t change it and pretend that’s what they originally said. I clearly say that I changed it. Anyone who doesn’t like the change can reblog the original. I don’t see the problem.
femmenoire, your problem should be with the historical document that is cissexist. What does that say when you take offense to somebody pointing out the document is oppressive to them and changing it so that it isn’t anymore? You’re a shitty ally if you think it’s okay to post or reblog something cissexist without at least pointing out that it is so.
When did I take offense to the cissexism being pointed out here? When?
What I said was that it is wrong to erase these African American women’s words. I’m an historian and I believe that people’s words ideas about their lives should be respected. I also said that you can critique that but to change those words is NOT. OK.
And one more times, it’s a historical document talking specifically about the ciswoman’s experiences who wrote it. I would never change that.
You took offense to ceasesilence pointing out the cissexism by changing it to gender neutral terms. Ceasesilence did not erase the point of the document, ze erased the cissexism. I’m a womanist and I believe that you have no right to be oppressive or to try to deny this quote you’re clinging to is oppressive. If you believe in respect, try practicing it first. Being a historian is not a get out of jail free card to be a shitty ally. If you think it’s not okay to erase the cissexist terms, you obviously think it’s okay to shit all over transgender people’s lives, and that’s not okay.
You don’t EVER change what the author was saying in a primary source document. It doesn’t matter what they were saying or how bigoted they were being. Altering an historical document is ahistorical and wrong. We do not apply our present-day views to them, we examine them in the context in which they took place (which karnythia already pointed out). In fact, changing the wording of an historical document simply erases whatever problematic wording that was there and erases any evidence of cissexism existing in said document, which is not a good thing because it alters the historical record to ignore that instance of cissexism.
besides all the above commentary, i wonder if every quote that uses “he”/”his” generally (to mean “people”) gets corrected, or if it only happens when someone uses “her.” cuz i have to say, i’ve only seen the latter.
fuck all y’all — meaning lionheartedgrrrl and ceasesilence.
I promise to listen and be corrected and I don’t want to start shit at all, but are you really in favour of deinstitutionalisation without any limits or so?Is it really good to leave a person in the middle of a psychosis alone on the streets?
I am against:
-policies towards disabled and mentally ill people that make them/us vulnerable to being institutionalized against our will
-the idea that institutionalization is the only/best way to deal with disabled/mentally ill people (EITHER you need to institutionalize people with mental illnesses OR leave them alone in the street - really?)
-pressuring people into institutions or acting like institutions are this great option for people when said institutions have extremely high rates of abuse, especially against women
I am not against:
-people having places to go and receive care, either short-term or long term
-more funding for places that provide that care
-better training and increased accountability for care providers
-respect for mentally ill/disabled patients’ autonomy
How far does your respect for that autonomy go? I am not talking about personality disorders or depressions or similar disorders. I am asking about a psychosis or a breakdown? Or about handicaps such as Down Syndrom or specific types of autism (not tumblr “I am a bit awkward autism”, but people that will seriously self-harm, if you don’t intervene by for example tying up?) I am not saying take the autonomy away, but I feel a bit lost to the question wether I really feel this would be the best for everyone. I dunno but if I was in the middle of a psychotic breakdown (not that unlikely since my grandfather and uncle had schizophrenia) I wouldn’t be sure that I am in control of myself or had that much of autonomy that can be followed?
I agree that there are other options than institutions and abuse is an issue as well as mistreatment (is this how you say wrong treatment as in therapeutically speaking?)
But I have found that the argument for deinstitutionalisation often leads to defunding and leaving people with inadequate care? As well as a blindness to what mentally ill/handicapped people can and can’t do. And I am unsure as to how much of the feelings concerning that matter have to do with the upholding of individuality and selfdependency as ultimate ideals, which maybe they aren’t.
This all is not to say that we don’t have serious problems with respecting the choices and the autonomy people with mental disorders etc. have. Especially in the way they want to be treated in the first place. I hate the stigmatization and the arrogance displayed by doctors and therapists as well as ‘normal’ people. I just see limits as to how far this can go.
I could be wrong but I feel like there’s a sort of all-or-nothing thing going on here - either we mandate that mentally ill people (and the guy in my class today, incidentally, used bipolar disorder and depression as examples of mental illness that people should be institutionalized for - so I get that that’s not what you’re talking about but it IS what was being discussed in the class that I was reacting to) go into institutions willingly or unwillingly, OR we strip them of resources and leave them to fend for themselves in the streets. No one has said anything along those lines, though? And I don’t think it’s really an either/or thing.
Mental health institutions are fucked up. Like, I’mma post some messages from an anon who was recently institutionalized in a bit, but abuse is OVERWHELMINGLY prevalent in institutions, many women are sexually abused by caretakers in institutions, etc. If a person is a danger to themselves/others, there should absolutely be safe places for them to go. My problem is that most institutions as they exist now do not meet that need. They focus on emergencies and crisis intervention rather than preventative care; they isolate patients from their existing support networks and remove whatever control the patient still has over their life; they are breeding grounds for abuse of doctor/patient dynamics.
IN ADDITION TO massive institutional reform, I would like to see a lot more money and support going into preventative things like social services, accessible healthcare and mental healthcare, accessible education and training, reasonable accommodations for disabled people, etc. THOSE are the things that keep mentally ill people off the streets and out of crisis - just like they keep non-mentally ill people off the streets and out of crisis. When funding has been cut to institutions and people essentially released into the street, the harm has been in releasing them without ANY sort of transition or social safety net. Of course anyone, mentally ill or not, is going to have a hard time if they’ve spent a long period in an institution - perhaps a very abusive institution - and then suddenly have no place to go and no support whatsoever.
TL;DR “respecting autonomy” isn’t as simple as “go do whatever the fuck you want off on your own”. It means affording people the opportunity to make real decisions about their lives, not coercing them into desperate situations through institutional/government-level neglect and then giving them “options” like “be committed or go on the street”.
Okay official Humorless Asshole show of hands time, who else is unnerved/annoyed/put off by all this “lol zombie apocalypse” stuff in response to horrific violence seemingly resulting from mental breaks of some sort
I was neutral on the subject at first but there’s only so many stories I can see with that angle before I can go “enough, seriously”
I am with you, because wtf what the hell is wrong with you if you see stories like that and your first thought is to giggle like an idiot about some tired old meme
It may come as a shock to many but Rebecca Black is in fact Latina. As she proudly stated in this mun2 interview, her mother is Mexican. Yet, her cultural heritage may not be as strange or shocking as the political stance that the 14-year-old YouTube singing sensation recently took in Mexico.