thagoodthings:

clauncher:

fun fact: Leelah’s mom took 2 days to realize she hadnt even put up the correct age of her daughter

she didnt even have pictures of her on her facebook along with her other children….she really did not care at all

I cannot fucking stand that people like this have kids.  If you don’t realize what a blessing a beautiful, sweet, good hearted daughter is, then you don’t deserve to be allowed to parent anyone.

Fuck you for having an awesome little girl and killing her for a son you never had.

Fuck you because I desperately want children and can’t afford one yet.

Been reading your dialogue with another anon about consent and the desire to hurt and be hurt. I agree with the anon for a series of reasons. 1. Agree that hurting people without their consent is wrong (except in circumstances maybe where they’re hurting you or someone else). 2. Agree that informed consent can only come after selfaware introspection about the reasons you are agreeing to let someone hurt you. more>

thepeacockangel:

3. A dominant or sadist can err on the side of assuming someone has done that inner work and wail away when they consent, or err on the side of caution and assume they are like the majority of people who dive into BDSM for the thrill of it without having done that work. 4. If a dominant chooses the former path they are just like the Libertarian Capitalist who will rationalize almost any egregious behavior as being something it’s his right to do, just because. Want to hear why you might disagree.

++++++

1, I’ve said that hurting people without their consent is wrong so many times I cannot even.  Doing ANYTHING to someone without their uncoerced consent is wrong, and a violation of their most basic human rights (unless they are doing something nonconsensual to you or someone else).  If you drag me against my will out of a cold day and into a warm house and force unwanted motherfucking gourmet hot chocolate down my throat, you have violated my rights as a human being, and if you tell me “Well you didn’t know what you were doing going out in the cold like that, so that non-consensual thing I just did was actually okay” you’ve still violated my most basic human rights.  You can give me facts about hypothermia, you can beg me for the sake of my health to come indoors and have some cocoa, but when you declare me “incompetent to make my own choices” you’ve just violated my consent, because I do not fucking consent to you deciding when I do and do not consent.  

2. Yes, however I think, as a submissive, that it’s my call in terms of when I feel I’ve done that inner work.  The fact that you’re trying to say that some people’s consent isn’t actually consent is pretty fucked, the idea that you as an outsider get to judge the validity of my consent, is fucked.  No one but me can decide whether or not I consent to something.  

3. Comparing having to take a dangerous/underpaid/unpaid/humiliating/etc job in order to not starve/starve slower to the frankly insulting and questionable “false consciousness” concept is really insulting to submissives, insulting to workers, and insulting to me personally, because it’s very easy to say “if you still want *kink X* you haven’t really examined yourself  thoroughly enough”  It’s too easy to inject ones personal ideology into this idea.  It’s a lot like how a lot of people’s almighty god sure does tend to parrot their personal beliefs.  It’s not a dominant’s right to do whatever they want, but it’s fundamentally a submissive’s right to agree to whatever they want.  There is no external measure for this internal work, and so it must be up to the individual.  If you gave a worker the option of a workplace that was safe/paid a living wage/respected they would obviously choose that one, in a society of uncontrolled capitalism there is no choice, and if you asked a worker, working in long hours dangerous conditions for a pittance if they’d leave if they could afford to, they would instantly say yes (provided the boss wasn’t in earshot).  Even if that worker was an ardent capitalist, if you asked them if they’d continue to work there if they didn’t need to do so to survive, they would still tell you no that they would leave their workplace.

4. The fact that you focus exclusively on the idea that a submissive must do internal work before their consent becomes valid is very telling.  People take dominant’s consent as a given, as something that requires no consideration and that’s really wrong.  By considering some actions more naturally consensual than others, you’ve invalidated the experience of every dominant who’s ever felt social pressure to perform.  Women are socialized to please men, and therefore dominant women in the scene may not be being dominant for themselves, but because they’ve been socialized to please their partner.

 Honestly, the number of times I’ve found myself feeling guilty for not performing a service my client/submissive wanted but I didn’t feel comfortable performing is immense, I’ve done things I didn’t feel comfortable with for submissives (like showing them parts of my body I did not want to show them to “tease” them, or watching them do things I did not want to watch, or letting them say things to me that were far beyond my rules and limits, to doing things that were ostensibly unpleasant for them that made me feel dirty and miserable) because I felt guilty and pressured to please a man.  Now, this is something that happens regardless of who’s doing the spanking, who’s doing the tying up.  The idea that somehow it’s always consensual to be the one doing the tying, the humiliating, the hitting, and that there’s no self examination due in terms of why you’re consenting to that, to why you’re consenting to anything is bullshit.  Making it about being “hurt” is bullshit, the idea that some actions are inherently good and some are inherently bad is bullshit, because it devalues consent.  I’ve felt pressured to agree to hugs, and gentle touch I did not want.  If being “hurt” requires a higher degree of consent you’ve just said that other actions require a lesser degree of consent, and that’s fucked up, by treating it as different from other actions you treat non-consensual experiences that aren’t that one as less of a violation.

5.  I think the best one can do is to let the person who experiences more axes of oppression lead in terms of suggesting what they want to do, let the person with less do the agreeing or disagreeing.  The idea that it has more to do with who’s “dominant” in terms of role, and less with who’s genuinely dominant in society is seriously fucked up and wrong.

misandry-mermaid:

amarilloo:

rgfellows:

rgfellows:

kanyewestboro:

calanoida:

Susanna and the Elders, Restored (Left)

Susanna and the Elders, Restored with X-ray (Right)

Kathleen Gilje, 1998

wow

Oooh my gosh this is rad. This is so rad.

For those who don’t know about this painting, the artist was the Baroque artist Artemisia Gentileschi.

Gentileschi was a female painter in a time when it was very largely unheard of for a woman to be an artist. She managed to get the opportunity for training and eventual employment because her father, Orazio, was already a well established master painter who was very adamant that she get artistic training. He apparently saw a high degree of skill in some artwork she did as a hobby in childhood. He was very supportive of her and encouraged her to resist the “traditional attitude and psychological submission to brainwashing and the jealousy of her obvious talents.”  

Gentileschi became extremely well known in her time for painting female figures from the Bible and their suffering. For example, the one seen above depicts the story from the Book of Daniel. Susanna is bathing in her garden when two elders began to spy on her in the nude. As she finishes they stop her and tell her that they will tell everyone that they saw her have an affair with a young man (she’s married so this is an offense punishable by death) unless she has sex with them. She refuses, they tell their tale, and she is going to be put to death when the protagonist of the book (Daniel) stops them.

So that painting above? That was her first major painting. She was SEVENTEEN-YEARS-OLD. For context, here is a painting of the same story by Alessandro Allori made just four years earlier in 1606: 

image

Wowwwww. That does not look like a woman being threatened with a choice between death or rape. So imagine 17 year old Artemisia trying to approach painting the scene of a woman being assaulted. And she paints what is seen in the x-ray above. A woman in horrifying, grotesque anguish with what appears to be a knife poised in her clenched hand. Damn that shit is real. Who wants to guess that she was advised by, perhaps her father or others, to tone it down. Women can’t look that grotesque. Sexual assault can’t be depicted as that horrifying. And women definitely can’t be seen as having the potential to fight back. Certainly not in artwork. Women need to be soft. They need to wilt from their captors but still look pretty and be a damsel in distress. So she changed it. 

What’s interesting to note is that she eventually painted and stuck with some of her own, less traditional depictions of women. However, that is more interesting with some context.  

(Warning for reference to rape, torture, and images of paintings which show violence and blood.)

So, Gentileschi’s story continues in the very next year, 1611, when her father hires Agostino Tassi, an artist, to privately tutor her. It was in this time when Tassi raped her. He then proceeded to promise that he would marry her. He pointed out that if it got out that she had lost her virginity to a man she wasn’t going to marry then it would ruin her. Using this, he emotionally manipulated her into continuing a sexual relationship with him. However, he then proceeded to marry someone else. Horrified at this turn of events she went to her father. Orazio was having none of this shit and took Tassi to court. At that time, rape wasn’t technically an offense to warrant a trial, but the fact that he had taken her virginity (and therefore technically “damaged Orazio’s property”. ugh.) meant that the trial went along. It lasted for 7 months. During this time, to prove the truth of her words, Artemisia was given invasive gynecological examinations and was even questioned while being subjected to torture via thumb screws. It was also discovered during the trial that Tassi was planning to kill his current wife, have an affair with her sister, and steal a number of Orazio’s paintings. Tassi was found guilty and was given a prison sentence of…. ONE. YEAR……. Which he never even served because the verdict was annulled.

During this time and a bit after (1611-1612), Artemisia painted her most famous work of Judith Slaying Holofernes. This bible story involved Holofernes, an Assyrian general, leading troops to invade and destroy Bethulia, the home of Judith. Judith decides to deal with this issue by coming to him, flirting with him to get his guard down, and then plying him with food and lots of wine. When he passed out, Judith and her handmaiden took his sword and cut his head off. Issue averted. The subject was a very popular one for art at the time. Here is a version of the scene painted in 1598-99 by Carivaggio, whom was a great stylistic influence on Artemisia:

image

This depiction is a pretty good example of how this scene was typically depicted. Artists usually went out of their way to show Judith committing the act (or having committed it) while trying to detach her from the actual violence of it. In this way, they could avoid her losing the morality of her character and also avoid showing a woman committing such aggression. So here we see a young, rather delicate looking Judith in a pure white dress. She is daintily holding down this massive man and looks rather disgusted and upset at having to do this. Now, here is Artemisia’s:

image

Damn. Thats a whole different scene. Here Holofernes looks less like he’s simply surprised by the goings ons and more like a man choking on his own blood and struggling fruitlessly against his captors. The blood here is less of a bright red than in Carrivaggio’s but is somehow more sickening. It feels more real, and gushes in a much less stylized way than Carrivaggio’s. Not to mention, Judith here is far from removed from the violence. She is putting her physical weight into this act. Her hands (much stronger looking than most depictions of women’s hands in early artwork) are working hard. Her face, as well, is completely different. She doesn’t look upset, necessarily, but more determined. 

It’s also worth note that the handmaiden is now involved in the action. It’s worth note because, during her rape trial, Artemisia stated that she had cried for help during the initial rape. Specifically she had called for Tassi’s female tenant in the building, Tuzia. Tuzia not only ignored her cries for help, but she also denied the whole happening. Tuzia had been a friend of Artemisia’s and in fact was one of her only female friends. Artemisia felt extremely betrayed, but rather than turning her against her own gender, this event instilled in her the deep importance of female relationships and solidarity among women. This can be seen in some of her artwork, and I believe in the one above, as well, with the inclusion of the handmaiden in the act.

So, I just added a million words worth of information dump on a post when no one asked me, but there we go. I could talk for ages about Artemisia as a person and her depictions of women (even beyond what I wrote above. Don’t get me started on her depictions of female nudes in comparison to how male artists painted nude women at the time.) 

To sum up: Artemisia Gentileschi is rad as hell. This x-ray is also rad as hell and makes her even radder.

I love art history.

I’m reblogging this again to add something that I also think is important to know about Artemisia Gentileschi.
Back in her time and through even to TODAY, there are people who argue that her artworks were greatly aided by her father…. As in he either helped her paint them or just straight up painted them himself. Hell, there are a number of works only recently (past several years or so) that have been officially attributed to Artemisia because people originally saw the signature with “Gentileschi” in it and automatically attributed it to Orazio.
So, not only was Artemisia Gentileschi an amazing artist and amazing historical figure, but I don’t want it to be ignored that there are people over 400 years later who still won’t give her the credit she deserves, just because she’s a woman and obviously women can’t paint like she did.

I fucking love Artemisia Gentileschi

Of all my art history papers I wrote in college, the one I wrote about Artemisia Gentileschi will always be my favorite.

I’d like to name a daughter Artemisia

How do you and your husband divide household chores? This is always an issue that comes up in relationships for me, and you seem like someone who would have a good take on it! Thanks!

He does the laundry, we share the cooking, he does the dishes, I do sweeping/scrubbing, he does picking up/organizing.  It’s mostly divided by us avoiding the chores we hate most.  

He cleans the really gross stuff out of the fridge because I am a wuss, but I put away the sugar every morning because he will always leave it out.

Also sometimes we play filth chicken which is a game where the first person to be upset enough to do something about a mess has to clean it up