catsbonerjams

“Sex negative” and “sex positive” are relatively useless terms in terms of discussing feminist approaches to issues of sex and sexuality. The terms convey the message that “sex positivity” equals support for a vision of sex and sexuality that is defined by patriarchy and one that is primarily libertarian. What’s defined as “sex positive feminism” tends to translate to: non-critical of the sex industry, BDSM, burlesque, and generally, anything that can be related to “sex.” “Non-judgement” is the mantra espoused by so-called “sex-positive feminists,” which is troubling because it ends up framing critical thought and discourse as “judgement” and therefore negative. Since I tend to see critical thinking as a good thing, the “don’t judge me”/”don’t say anything critical about sex because it’s sex and therefore anything goes” thing doesn’t sit well with me.

“Sex negative,” on the other hand, tends to be ascribed to feminists who are critical of prostitution, pornography, strip clubs, burlesque, BDSM and, really, sex and sexuality as defined by patriarchy and men. The reason that feminists are critical of these things is because they want to work towards a real, liberated, feminist understanding of sex and sexuality, rather than one that sexualizes inequality, domination and subordination, is male-centered, and is harmful and exploitative of women. To me, that sounds far more “sex positive” (from a feminist perspective, anyway), than blind support for anything sex-related, because sex.

newwavefeminism

Anonymous asked:

"I tend to not invest in the cultivation of ally development. If you find resources, I hope they help." That's just a nice-sounding way of using the 'It's not my job to educate you'. Guess what: You don't live in a vacuum. If you want to live here & for things to get better, you're going to have to contribute to the solution to the problems. Sorry.

newwavefeminism answered:

I don’t see how me giving allies tips is the sole determining factor in things getting better…

Sounds like a bunch a bullshit to me. Cause I personally believe that it’s perfectly fine/necessary to provide interventions to make those actually affected by oppression my priority.

But people who are used to being at the center of everything can’t understand that, I suppose

Some crap that accumulates as college students transient in and out of an apartment includes anybeing-collaborated magnetic poetry. Provoking:

lick her soft feline thing
give best special brown feeling
love never catch light after calico feet
siamese warm come

Saying this as the least wise, most angry member of MeFi: I think it boils down to dehumanization and abstraction, both being different facets of the same state of mind. I truly believe wisdom is ultimately the state of mind that does not focus on one’s self to the exclusion of all else.

When we learn to understand other viewpoints, to understand other people, to break down in our own minds the tyranny of distance and disconnect… we begin to be wise in the ways of our fellow human creature. We no longer see everyone else automatons operating in our own personal theatrical production, but understand- and this is not to say without judgment or consequence- why people act the way they do and the unique yet common reasons why they are the way they are, and why we all are the way we are. Understanding our roles as chemical neural baths that operate with a conscious mind deluded into thinking its reactive patterns are in fact always “free will” opens the mind to understanding that often we are as simplistic as other animals, and you would no more beat a dog for acting like a dog as you would a human acting like a human.

Similarly, this dehumanization of other lives can only happen by abstraction, when we say so shortsightedly that “this person is an idiot making bad choices”, when we fail to see that they, like us, have had years of life to build upon- an often crooked and unstable foundation! Our own painful experiences therefore are a way of grounding us, and reminding us of our shared fragilities. When I was 14, I thought the libertarian hardline of an Ayn Rand made perfect sense in the Plato’s cave I called an adolescent bedroom. By the time I was 21 and homeless, I so much better understood how foolish I really was…

The epitome of ending one’s own tendencies of dehumanization would be the christ-like or buddhist openness, where one can see the lives of others as equally as one’s own, and places no inherent value to life or judgment in the choices of others. Of course, if you ever achieve this state, as history has repeatedly shown, you will be most certainly killed by everyone else, because apparently no one likes a show off. :)

hincandenza answering abstract questions on metafilter

I avoid attachment in irritating ways that don’t actually involve physical separation. This might be why I hung out with those where attachments formed would be easily reversed. Sometimes it’s impossible, and makes me thirsty as they say and it captures me. Maybe for  too long. Maybe for 9 years, like it had once. I realized that when a glimpse is there, I’m all too willing to hook my tendrils in. I am as easy as a fish. Shine your keys at me and I’ll bite. It feels so much like you’re actually seen and heard, when all it is is a hook inside. What’s happening is that I’m all too willing to fuse and empty of my gut, for the delusion of having found fulfillment through being caught.

going through my notebook. confusing things

403 BCE Human, earthly unity losing its hold— tendency toward abstraction, not ritual. partaking in movement of ox is related to heavens. the human and divine realms are where abstractions gain power

iettatura
We have no problem in this country rewarding individuals of color momentarily as a way never to address structural cannibalistic inequalities that are faced by the communities these people come out of. …I am representative of a structural exclusion that room is made for “ones” so that room does not have to be made for the “manies”.

Junot Diaz (via lakripati)

Exactly. One Junot Diaz usually means that the white publishing establishment looks at another Dominican or Latino writer and says “nah we already have Diaz”.

(via zuky)