““Consent is sexy” is rape culture wrapped in feminist packaging. “Consent is sexy” is no longer good enough, if it ever was.
I can appreciate that there was once a need for this narrative. This line of thinking has served a purpose and helped bring conversations about consent into mainstream public consciousness. There was a time and a place for common sense arguments like, “Isn’t it so much hotter to get enthusiastic consent from a partner who whispers, ‘I want your cock’ than starting to fuck someone who isn’t into it?” The concept of consent was so far removed from mainstream conversations that we needed something catchy and simple and kind of glamorous for people to latch onto in order to hear what we had to say.
But I feel like at this point, we’re beyond that narrative. A lot of people get the concept of enthusiastic consent. We’re talking about it in more places and with more people than we ever have (though not nearly enough, I know). We’ve made some semblance of progress when it comes to talking about consent. And so it’s time to start framing consent differently. Because, to be quite honest, a thong with the words “consent is sexy” is not just not doing it for me, it’s actively offensive to me.
Because why is the end goal always for women to be sexy? Why is that what we’re supposed to aspire to (and while consent is not exclusive to hetero pairings, we usually only talk about consent as it relates to them, thus being that I, as a woman, should want to aspire to be sexy for a man)? Why is it that we feel like we need to frame consent as something appealing to men in order to make it worth talking about? What if I don’t want to be sexy? What if I just want to be respected? What if I just want to have agency? What if I just, you know, don’t want to be raped?”—Moving Beyond The “Consent Is Sexy” Narrative | Fiending for Hope (via brutereason)
“For over a decade, Americans have been told that terrorism poses a threat that cannot be addressed by the existing legal system; that a new domain of law must be constructed to handle this new threat. What has actually been created is a new domain of pseudo-law where the roles of law making, law enforcement, and judiciary, are rolled into a single political authority. Even if there has been no coup d’etat, nor extended imposition of martial law, this is nonetheless the dawning of an insidious and piecemeal form of fascism. It does not impose itself with an iron fist but grows upon us slowly, so that painlessly freedom can be lost as it is gradually forgotten.”—America’s willingness to be terrified by terrorism (via theamericanbear)
“If you think of this idea of nothingness as mere blankness, and you hold onto this idea of blankness, you haven’t understood it. Nothingness is really like the nothingness of space, which contains the whole universe. All the sun, moon and stars, and the mountains and rivers, and the good men and bad men, and the animals and the insects, the whole bit—all are contained in the void. So out of this void comes everything and you are it. What else could you be?”—Alan Watts, The State of Nothing (via we-are-star-stuff)
“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience. It would be easy, however, to destroy that good conscience by shouting to them: if you want the happiness of the people, let them speak out and tell what kind of happiness they want and what kind they don’t want! But, in truth, the very ones who make use of such alibis know they are lies; they leave to their intellectuals on duty the chore of believing in them and of proving that religion, patriotism, and justice need for their survival the sacrifice of freedom.”—Albert Camus, Homage to an Exile (via probablyasocialecologist)
“The unambiguous historical evidence is that the state of Israel was founded upon terrorism and the ethnic cleansing of the indigenous Arab population. There is nothing pure or righteous about that”—William Martin
“No one asked, at any point, if Mitt Romney might give up on his presidential ambitions because he wanted to spend more time with his litter of grandkids. Fuck, no one even asked in 2012 if Tagg Romney would do less on the campaign trail because he just got two new babies. No one asked because not only did no one care, but because everyone assumed that things would go on as normal because that’s what the fuck people do, men, women, grand or otherwise. The only reason anyone is talking about this is because Hillary Clinton has lady parts. And, no matter how you wanna sputter, “But…no,” it comes out sexist.”—Mitt Romney Became a Grandfather Eight Times While Running for President and No One Gave a Damn (via samuraifuckingfrog)
straight boys think girls can’t take compliments, and that’s ridiculous cause i’ve seen so many girls compliment each other, i’ve seen conversations & friendships blossom from girls complimenting each other in line, on the street, at school waiting for the bus, pretty much anywhere.
the problem is straight boys think sexual harassment & assault are compliments.
Nothing changed after 13 people were killed at Columbine, or 33 at Virginia Tech, or 26 at Sandy hook. Each of those tragedies came with the same breaking news coverage as Columbine, but none generated the same sense of action because fewer and fewer people actually believed things could change. The last 15 years have been a lesson in how “never again” can be cowed into “I need a drink.”
And that’s insane. It’s an insane thing to have to accept that problem as an inevitability. It’s an insane reality to have to shrug off.
“The bread you are holding back is for the hungry, the clothes you keep put away are for the naked, the shoes that are rotting away with disuse are for those who have none, the silver you keep buried in the earth is for the needy. You are thus guilty of injustice toward as many as you might have aided, and did not.”—St. Basil the Great, On Social Justice (via thepoorinspirit-extras)
Researchers may have identified key genes linked to why some people have a higher tolerance for pain than others, according to a study released today that will be presented at the American Academy of Neurology’s 66th Annual Meetingin Philadelphia, April 26 to May 3, 2014.
“Our study is quite significant because it provides an objective way to understand pain and why different individuals have different pain tolerance levels,” said study author Tobore Onojjighofia, MD, MPH, with Proove Biosciences and a member of the American Academy of Neurology. “Identifying whether a person has these four genes could help doctors better understand a patient’s perception of pain.”
Researchers evaluated 2,721 people diagnosed with chronic pain for certain genes. Participants were taking prescription opioid pain medications. The genes involved were COMT, DRD2, DRD1 and OPRK1. The participants also rated their perception of pain on a scale from zero to 10. People who rated their pain as zero were not included in the study. Low pain perception was defined as a score of one, two or three; moderate pain perception was a score of four, five or six; and high pain perception was a score of seven, eight, nine or 10.
Nine percent of the participants had low pain perception, 46 percent had moderate pain perception and 45 percent had high pain perception.
The researchers found that the DRD1 gene variant was 33 percent more prevalent in the low pain group than in the high pain group. Among people with a moderate pain perception, the COMT and OPRK variants were 25 percent and 19 percent more often found than in those with a high pain perception. The DRD2 variant was 25 percent more common among those with a high pain perception compared to people with moderate pain.
“Chronic pain can affect every other part of life,” said Onojjighofia. “Finding genes that may be play a role in pain perception could provide a target for developing new therapies and help physicians better understand their patients’ perceptions of pain.”
“Humans — who enslave, castrate, experiment on, and fillet other animals — have had an understandable penchant for pretending animals do not feel pain. A sharp distinction between humans and ‘animals’ is essential if we are to bend them to our will, make them work for us, wear them, eat them — without any disquieting tinges of guilt or regret. It is unseemly of us, who often behave so unfeelingly toward other animals, to contend that only humans can suffer. The behavior of other animals renders such pretensions specious. They are just too much like us.”—Carl Sagan (via we-are-star-stuff)
"Most people seem to equate income with working: You go to your job, do your tasks, and get a paycheck. But this is only half of the story. At a macro-economic level, a nation’s income is divided between owners and workers, with the part flowing to the owners called "capital’s share" and the part flowing to the workers called "labor’s share." In recent years, capital’s share of the national income has been as high as 37 percent, which is to say 37 cents of every dollar of income in a year goes to passive owners of wealth."
“Well, we all like things to be predictable, don’t we? We expect things to be safe and to keep on happening just the way they always have. We expect the sun to rise in the morning. We expect to get up, survive the day and finish up back in bed at the end of it, ready to start all over again the next day. But maybe that’s just a trick we play on ourselves, our way of making life seem ordinary. Because the truth is, life is so extraordinary that for most of the time we can’t bring ourselves to look at it. It’s too bright and it hurts our eyes. The fact of the matter is that nothing is ever certain. But most people never find that out until the ground suddenly disappears from beneath their feet.”—Steve Voake (via theuniverseworks)
““Hurry,” she was whispering now, “quickly, quickly, now, do it now, do me now. Jaime Jaime Jaime.” Her hands helped guide him. “Yes,” Cersei said as he thrust, “my brother, sweet brother, yes, like that, yes, I have you, you’re home now, you’re home now, you’re home.” She kissed his ear and stroked his short bristly hair. Jaime lost himself in her flesh. He could feel Cersei’s heart beating in time with his own, and the wetness of blood and seed where they were joined.”—
This is the passage in the book. Sick and morbid considering they are fucking on an altar next to the corpse of their eldest son? Yes. But 100% consensual. Fuck the show. Last week’s episode was so, so promising (written by GRRM, so there you have it), and now we’re back to regular programmed “A Game of let’s see how much sexualized violence and gratuitous orgys we can fit into an episode”. And not just the fact that they once again use rape as a plot device in the hopes (I am guessing) to make a hated female character weak and pitiful and therefore more likeable, it goes against the canon text in every conceivable way. Jaime thinks rape is despicable. Jaime would never do this. JAIME LOST HIS HAND PROTECTING HIS FRIEND FROM GETTING RAPED. This destroyed four seasons of character development. (via watercolorstain)
I don’t really watch Game Of Thrones, but those of you who do deserve to know this
“Right off the bat, let’s note that it’s arguably well past time for the political world to stop equating “manhood” with “cruise missiles.” Being an “alpha male” or an “alpha dog” may somehow seem impressive, in a junior-high-school-yard sort of way, but when analyzing geopolitical crises, we need a different kind of framework.”—Steve Benen writing at Maddow Blog on the propensity to invoke masculine gender roles as a metaphor for power in discussions about foreign policy (via beyondxy)
“Bring consent out of the bedroom. I think part of the reason we have trouble drawing the line “it’s not okay to force someone into sexual activity” is that in many ways, forcing people to do things is part of our culture in general. Cut that shit out of your life. If someone doesn’t want to go to a party, try a new food, get up and dance, make small talk at the lunchtable—that’s their right. Stop the “aww c’mon” and “just this once” and the games where you playfully force someone to play along. Accept that no means no—all the time.”—
Does loving someone unconditionally mean accepting another person's behavior that often pushes the limits of and exhausts even the most extensive efforts of patience and tolerance? Because I love someone more than anything and anyone but a reaction which they can willingly change, is unbearable and if that means that I don't love this person unconditionally, then what does that say about me? Does it mean i am not compassionate enough?doesn't tolerating over and over enable the behavior?
Hi sweetheart. <3
This is an excellent question and really gets at some of the most slippery and subtle aspects of love and tolerance.
I cannot profess to know the answers or give you any advice with your particular situation, my friend, but I will share my thoughts about the dynamic you are talking about and maybe you can contemplate what rings true for you. :)
First of all, I wonder how you know they can willingly change their reaction? It may appear that it is easy to drop from where you stand, and I’m not saying it’s not, but if it’s truly a ‘reaction’ it isn’t calculated but rather is stemming from a deeply ingrained reactive pattern. What is this reaction? Where did it come from? Did it once serve them in some capacity? What is this person getting out of it now, if anything? Something fed it at one time or is feeding it now. Power? Attention? Avoidance of something?? Do they want to change? Is this person creating these situations unconsciously so your ‘tolerance’ of the behavior is an attempt to feed their insecurity because they have felt unloved somehow and are playing out old family of origin dynamics?
Not being able to tolerate a reaction doesn’t mean you don’t love them unconditionally, my friend. They are not their behavior and you don’t have to like it or put up with something that crosses lines of safety or assaults you in some way physically or energetically. ‘Unbearable’ doesn’t sound good, love.
Here are some possible things to think about: Perhaps this reaction is pushing your buttons so intensely because there is something from your past that needs to be addressed within you, independent of this person’s need to address their own issue? Also, Love doesn’t always mean holding on; sometimes it does mean letting go. Talking about that reaction when it’s not happening, not from a stance of emotion or blame, but in a problem-solving capacity, may help change the pattern. Understanding the ‘triggers’ for the reaction can help them and you change the pattern. Also, looking at your response to the reaction and changing that or creating physical space between you when it occurs may change the outcome as well. Being present and loving in the midst of someone else’s emotional reactivity can be extremely challenging - someone else’s unconscious emotional reactivity can magnetically pull us into our own.
In order to change this dynamic, it works best if there is awareness of it, a desire to change it, and a replacement for it. Whatever it’s serving, the person can find something else to put in its place (words to say, a healthy coping strategy to employ, etc). Anticipating the antecedent (‘trigger’), changing the behavior consciously with a pre-contemplated new replacement response, and also changing the environment/reactions to the person’s behavior can all change the habitual tendency.
There are at least 3 possible options, as I see it anyway without knowing the nature of your relationship or the specifics: 1. You both work on this and engage in changing it. 2. You contemplate, change something in how you think about it and respond, and whatever still lingers despite what you have changed you decide is something you can indeed deal with. 3. You decide that it is most loving to have more space from this person.
Creating more space between you does not mean you don’t love them unconditionally. Sometimes that is the most loving thing to do, and there are all kinds of ways to increase space. Sometimes reactive patterns between people stop both from growing and thriving. Love & tolerance don’t mean tolerating abuse. No relationship is always smooth - we hold up the mirror for each other and it shows us where we can grow. In my mind and experience, love is about seeing each other’s humanity, being real and communicating about what comes up, loving each other through the bumps and the shit storms, and taking steps toward one another with trust and growing strength. If someone is not willing or able to walk with you as a partner in this journey, it doesn’t mean your love isn’t strong enough or you are lacking in some capacity. Sometimes that just means Love is stronger than the need to be together with that person or prove anything to anyone. Staying together and ‘tolerating’ isn’t love. Following the needs of both spirits is Love. Choosing space from someone with a higher understanding of what each of your souls needs to move closer to the Heart is certainly another and deeper and more challenging aspect of Love… Many times, however, things can change and work can be done when real discussion and also counseling can help someone through their blind spots.
Please don’t confuse tolerance with being a doormat, love. Not creating space when someone who loves you is being abusive in some way, is actually not being loving to them, let alone you. We can feed and enable behavior in the name of love and tolerance, but you’re right, that really isn’t Love… You have all the love you need, and unconditional Love means to love the person beyond their human struggles. It doesn’t mean we are always rolling over and swallowing our own feelings. We can stand strong in our own self love and also love them no matter whether we are embracing them, telling them our truth, working hard through something with them, giving them a hand, stepping away from them, or sending them blessings from afar. Love isn’t being in the same space, but respecting the call and the needs of each spirit to grow, to live more and more in the Heart, and to thrive in relationship no matter what form it takes.
“I don’t understand why people care so much about showing that they are good; because I am rather comfortable with having badness, quite okay with being inexplicable. They tire themselves so. The light is beautiful; but light can’t hide treasures like the darkness can.”—C. JoyBell C. (via creatingaquietmind)
“But here’s the thing: healing doesn’t have to be heavy. It doesn’t have to feel like a tiresome concept that we lug around on our backs; one that holds within it the burden of our pain and suffering. It doesn’t have to be cloaked in drama. Healing can mean whatever the hell you want it to mean; happiness, softness, awareness, forgiveness, letting go, returning to totality…”—Tara Bliss (via creatingaquietmind)
“Whatever happens, let it happen
Whatever is appearing, let it appear
Whatever arises, let it arise
Whatever is, let it be as it is
Whatever is not, let it not be”—Jewel Treasure Of The Dharmadhatu (via manakahandmade)
“The roots of all living things are tied together. Deep in the ground of being, they tangle and embrace. If we look deeply, we find that we do not have a separate self-identity, a self that does not include sun and wind, earth and water, creatures and plants, and one another.”—Joan Halifax (via natural-magics)
“More and more I found myself at a loss for words and didn’t want to hear other people talking either. Their conversations seemed false and empty. I preferred to look at the sea, which said nothing and never made you feel alone.”—Paula McLain, The Paris Wife (via bruisinq)