amoracomplex:

If your only means of body-positivity are sexualizing any and all body types, and claiming you find them sexually appealing and thus are right by you. You’re erasing the fact that the human body exists beyond the purpose of sex, or physical forms of gratification.

If you’re telling me, I should be proud of how I look, because you would sleep with me, than you are directly saying my worth, be it to myself or others, is immediately correlated with my sexual appeal, and thus invalidating my right to not only deny sex, but not wish to affiliate the human form with anything aside from it.

If you are incapable of being more than that, then by all means, go fuck yourself

jessiesula:

pizzaforpresident:

I’m so done with this planet

she saved two lives and all they care about is her nipple.

this is sexism, my friends.

(via singingintheelevator)

beautyoverthelimit:

queensassyofthefatties:

I’m curious to know your opinion on this.

SO MANY THINGS WRONG WITH THIS I DON’T EVEN KNOW WHERE TO BEGIN.

I guess.

1. NOT EVERY FAT PERSON HAS BIG BOOBS. Like, fat people come in all different shapes and sizes and carry their weight different. Fat people can, and do, have small boobs. So what does this say to the fat people who don’t have big boobs - or boobs AT ALL?

2. If your apology is really just you drooling and sexualizing a part of a fat person’s body and reducing them to that body part for the sole reason of attempting (laughably so) to humanize them…

You can shove that snarky, satirical apology up your ass.

3. God didn’t create the anti-fat culture fat people suffer in. You did. ‘God’ has nothing to apologize for. People do. Disgusting, fat phobic people.

4. Stealing someone’s personal pictures to talk about how your stiffy has solved their problems is just really fucking gross. That’s a real person in that picture with real fucking feelings.

^

and maybe just to say number 2. again in a slightly different way. To think that a woman is only acceptable if they can be objectified is massively sexist as well a fatphobic. The message can be read like this ‘eeeurrgh fat women are generally yuk, and the main point of a woman is to be attractive for me, but thank the Lord, she has big breasts, oh so i can objectify her after all’. big woop.

(Source: saucy-mermaid, via rimadeer)

ordream:

ad-busting:

I normally don’t post things like this, but I thought this was perfect. This is one of the most important messages I hope people take from reading my blog.

Hm. Something to think about.

profit and power

solivewiretense:

“When considering misogyny in culture, the most obvious examples are usually found in everyday lowbrow media – sitcoms like Two and a half men, beer commercials, lads mags, gross-out comedies etc.

It’s pretty easy to shoot this stuff down.

What I find worse, however, is highbrow misogyny. Culture which is considered to be “great art” is often just as misogynistic as lowbrow culture, but it gets a free pass a lot of the time, because its artistic merit is assumed to outweigh any negative stereotypes of female people that it might perpetuate.

You can find it in the work of literary monoliths like Roth and Updike, and pretty much every other celebrated male author. You can find it in supposedly intelligent TV series like The Sopranos. You can find it in at least 82% of french cinema. And you can find it in the work of serious pop artistes like Nick Cave.

I was browsing a bookshop the other day, and came across this:

It’s the cover of his new book. It’s so edgy and fresh, right? It’s so damn hip in this day and age of amateur porn. Oh, Nick, you’ve shown us all how zeitgeisty you are. We get it – you are not only a man of substance, but you’re also down with the cool kids.

From a synopsis I skimmed, it seems the book is about a womanizer, his son and a serial killer. The usual stuff – sex and death. Of course, the best representation of sex and death is a woman’s headless body. But since Nick is so unbelievably bleeding edge, he took this one step further and gave us just a woman’s crotch instead. But unlike the lads mags and beer commercials, it’s classy when Nick does it – because he is a serious artist, remember.

Of course, I would never expect anything else from Nick, considering this is a man whose greatest hit was a song about bashing Kylie Minogue to death with a rock.

There once was a time when I used to suffer through books, films, TV, music, theater and poetry laced with misogyny, because they were considered great works of art that all educated people should be familiar with.

No more. Life is too short, and I’ve come to the conclusion that any work which dehumanizes half the world’s population as a matter of course is not great art at all – on the contrary – it lacks an insight into the human condition on the most fundamental level.

If an artist cannot help injecting misogyny into his art, then he is no artist. He should give up, stop wasting everyone’s time, and start writing for Two and a half men.

I expect to see Nick Cave listed on the credits rather soon…”

Yes. And please note, trendy tumblr blogs with ‘arty’ photos objectifying women are still objectifying women. And I’m embarrassed that you follow this blog, I think i’m probably doing something wrong

(via tic-tac926)

(Source: lingeringchai, via halfalipsticklesbian)

Hello.  I started a discussion a little while ago, and I was wondering if the topic could be civilly reopened.  It has been pointed out that some women who choose not to shave are frustrated by people telling them their hairy legs are sexy.  Their choice to bare hairy legs in public may be motivated, at least in part, by a desire to combat the objectification of women.  Being told that that their legs are sexy could be interpreted as “a continuation of this sexualisation of the female body (or parts there of); … it just shifts objectification from one ideal to another.”  It was suggested that my arguments and ideas came from a place of ignorance rather than malice, but I know that ignorance can do just as much, if not more harm than malice, so I ask for your thoughts, and your help.  Here is my problem:

If I, as a cis male, primarily attracted to women, find female body hair (or any physical trait) attractive, is there a way to express that attraction without working against the cause of gender equality?  Is there a way of saying, “I find this sexy/beautiful/attractive,” without saying, “I value you as a sexual object more than I do as a person”?  It would seem there is an assumption that when a man expresses any such attraction, he doesn’t value women as whole people, regardless of his actual views.  Or, is the problem not in the expression of attraction, but in the attraction itself?  Is it wrong to find specific physical traits attractive?

In your response, if you choose to respond, please remember that I am here seeking understanding.  If I’ve made some blunder and offended you, please be kind and help me see what I’ve missed. 

submitted by operalifelove

I came across a quote the other day something like this, “it is one thing enjoying something that is problematic, it is another thing to argue that because you enjoy it, it isn’t problematic”. So basically, yes, I think it’s a problem for men to find female body hair sexy, I don’t think shaming people for what they find sexy is useful, but its not ok to try and justify it, to say that its ok because its natural, or neutral, or free from context, or outside of power relations, because desire isn’t any of those things. Particular, the way in which men sexualise women isn’t any of those things.

I find it an act of aggression when men sexualise women’s body hair. Because many women who have body hair do it to reclaim themselves for themselves, and to try and help other women be seen as subjects, and not objects. So when men sexualise women’s body hair I see it as them reasserting their dominance and control and ownership – women can’t have anything for themselves, not even their selves, or do anything for other women, because everything they try to do and have, men co-opt and reduce to a thing that is for them. Men sexualising body hair benefits them, it keeps them in an advantaged position, and women as objects of their desire. It’s pretty frustrating. So yes, I think that the only non-objectifying way to find a woman attractive, is to find her attractive as a person, and therefore find everything about her attractive, rather than dismembering people into parts that you can fetishise.

I think its a mistake to think that this type of territory is about ‘offence’. It you say something I disagree with it, I disagree on moral or political grounds. If I disagree with you its because i think you are wrong, and I can give reasons for that, which include that such ways of acting causes people harm, not just because I’m offended. That is to say, it is not the emotional reaction of annoyance or resentment (offence) that is the main consideration when people say problematic things, and to frame it so trivialises my reaction.

secondly, if you say something that i think falls under that bracket, i.e. is a belief linked to a way of acting that causes people harm, then its a bit silly to assume that i should be ‘kind’ to you. I generally try to be measured, but i don’t think i am obliged to be. And to admit that you might be saying something harmful, and then dictate how i respond to you makes you come across as though you think you should have the right to say whatever you want without suffering any repercussions. If people communicate dangerous ideas, I don’t see why they should be able to set the parameters by which people can respond to them, they don’t get to have that control over social interactions, where they can both communicate dangerous ideas and tell people how they can respond.

“The problem with engaging in this kind of public commentary on the bodies of famous people is that it contributes to a world in which announcing one’s body-size observations is a normal and acceptable thing to do, even when these comments are not about celebrities. It creates a culture in which what we ALL do with our bodies is open for public comment.”

Here’s the second vid which illustrates the use of Photoshop in advertising to alter how women look.

You’ve probably seen these vids from Dove before. They’re pretty good though so here they are in case you missed them.

[WANG in no way falls for Dove’s anti-ageing ‘real women’ nonsense, they’re still an evil company who want your hard earned $$$ regardless of how much they say they <3 women]

They mutiliate women and then sell their images to us.

(Source: neworleansnightmare)