MiseryXchord

Pro-life (Trigger Warning for Rape)

stfuhypocrisy:

propaganda-for-life:

demonstrativenotdemonstrative:

Pro-life is NOT anti-sex.

And it doesn’t have ANYTHING to do with Christianity. People need to stop associating the two with each other.

Being pro-life has to do with morals.

And being responsible.
If abortion was used for things OTHER THAN using it as a way to escape the consequences of your actions, and not using protection, then things would all be different.

But the problem lies with all those little teenage girls who are going to abortion clinics because they chose to have sex without protection, or didn’t protect themselves enough.

Those teens think they are grown enough to have sex and play around with it, but when it comes time to pay the bill, they want out.

That’s why it’s stupid.

Rape victims don’t count, neither do people who get pregnant and can’t continue with it for medical reasons, i.e. tubal pregnancies, having to go off meds for it, etc etc.

This isn’t addressing those cases, it’s addressing those women who kill their future child because they “can’t have kids at this time” or “aren’t ready to be a mom.”

Well maybe they should have thought of that before they opened their legs without the proper precautionary actions.

#end rant. 

You don’t once mention here that life is sacred or any of that bull. Not once. So, considering also you also make the rape exception, you aren’t in this for the poor fetuses. You’re in this because you don’t want women to be sexually independent, and you want women who have sex recreationally to be punished for their choices with nine months of pregnancy, the most painful childbirth experience of all mammals, and either raising a baby which will cost $500,000 or more over its lifetime or giving it away for adoption, which can be far more emotionally scarring than an abortion.

Seriously, sex serves purposes in human beings other than reproduction. It’s a method of bonding and recreation for us, as well, and you have to respect that this is wired into our psychology. There are some people who never want kids; do you honestly expect them to never have sex as well? Don’t you slut-shame on me.

Precautions such as condoms and birth control can also fail, and hell, the Guttmacher Institute released a study which revealed that around half of all people seeking abortions were using some precautionary method during the month they became pregnant. How about them cookies?

Most people seeking abortions are in their 20s, not their teens. That’s a total stereotype. Again, Guttmacher Institute study.

Pointing out ignorance to people’s own misogyny like a boss. I don’t think I’ll ever tire of this.

Hold up.

“Pro-life is NOT anti-sex.”

“Well maybe they should have thought of that before they opened their legs without the proper precautionary actions.”

Do you wanna try telling me that again with a straight face?

54% of people seeking abortions were using some form of contraception. Of those who weren’t, about 30% was because they had concerns with contraception ie; latex allergies, blood clot risks from the pill etc. Another approx 30% were told they couldn’t get pregnant ie; infertile, vasectomies/tubes tied etc. Only 8% had never used protection ever, and the remaining percentage I can’t remember off the top of my head.

Regardless, it’s not up to you to decide how every pregnancy happens, nor how every pregnancy turns out. You don’t have to agree with abortion, but you cannot deny women access to abortion simply cuz you don’t like it. At the end of the day, women will take matters into their own hands and do it themselves or seek other unsafe options, which, as stated above, turns into 70,000 women dying every single year around the world due to unsafe abortion. Leaving behind 220,000 kids.

Do you wanna adopt those kids every year? Do you wanna tell those kids why they don’t have a mother?

“Cuz um, I thought abortion was wrong, so I tried to outlaw it and left your mom with no other options. So she um… died doing it herself. Sorry.”

Oh right, btw, 61% of women seeking abortions are ALREADY FUCKING MOTHERS.

Please go diaf or stfu. You clearly don’t know what you’re talking about.

[TW sexual assault] Police officer ejaculates on woman, and is found not guilty of felony charges

LINK: Police officer ejaculates on woman, and is found not guilty of felony charges

aim2misbehave:

lizardkitsch:

stfuconservatives:

downlo:

nemene:

fistwavingfeminism:

No one disputes that an on-duty Irvine police officer got an erection and ejaculated on a motorist during an early-morning traffic stop in Laguna Beach. The female driver reported it, DNA testing confirmed it and officer David Alex Park finally admitted it.

When the case went to trial, however, defense attorney Al Stokke argued that Park wasn’t responsible for making sticky all over the woman’s sweater. He insisted that she made the married patrolman make the mess—after all, she was on her way home from work as a dancer at Captain Cream Cabaret.

“She got what she wanted,” said Stokke. “She’s an overtly sexual person.”

Click link to read full article

This is enraging…. and people claim rape culture doesn’t exist.

I just don’t understand this verdict. How the hell can that jury think that squirting bodily fluids on another person without their consent is at all OK?

“But she’s a stripper blah blah victim-blaming blah.”

By that logic, it should be legal to throw fecal matter at sanitation workers. Or to throw blood and vomit at doctors and nurses. Being a sex worker doesn’t give everyone else the right to have sexual contact with you.

“She got what she wanted”

Awful. Just awful. Victim-blaming at its finest. I’m pretty sure you would get thrown the FUCK out of a strip club if you tapped a dancer in the shoulder and then jizzed on her. Unacceptable behavior under any circumstances.

“A jury of one woman and 11 men—many white and in their 50s or 60s—agreed with Stokke. On Feb. 2, after a half-day of deliberations, they found Park not guilty of three felony charges that he’d used his badge to win sexual favors during the December 2004 traffic stop.”

SURPRISE SURPRISE.

I puked a little in my heart. He admitted to it and yet…he got away? That’s fucking disgusting.

Um, and they’re ignoring the fact that it ended up on her sweater? Even if he found her so attractive that he couldn’t prevent himself from orgasming on the side of the highway, shouldn’t it have ended up, y’know, inside his pants? 

inherhipstheresrevolutions:

Petition: Editor Who Blamed Lara Logan For Her Gang Rape Must Go!

kaycem:

speaksoon-staylucky:

tasteslikepink:

stfurapeculture:

petitefeministe:

Please sign.

I signed it. His article was disgusting. Here’s a choice quote:

Earth to liberated women: when you display legs, thighs, or cleavage, some liberated men will see it as a sign you feel good about yourself and your sexuality. But most men will see it as a sign you want to get laid. Forewarned is forearmed.

Forewarned is forearmed.

Try, rape culture is rape apologism. Try swallowing that, asshole.

Apparently I signed it on the 16th. Everyone else, please sign this.

“For example: Don’t trust your male friends. Don’t go to a man’s home at night unless you’re prepared to have sex with him. Don’t disrobe in front of a male masseur. If you take a job as a masseuse, don’t be shocked if your male customers think you’re a prostitute. And if you want to be taken seriously as a journalist, don’t pose for pictures that emphasize your cleavage.”

(bolding is mine.)  Sincerely can’t believe this shit-for-brains asshat is serious… that quote sounds like something that should be on ‘the onion’ or something.

He is disgusting. He’s reducing everyone to gender roles/stereotypes and defining mens worth by their apparently oh-so-uncontrollable sex drive and women by their physicalities…

Vile.

stfuhypocrisy:

Mr Loophole provokes outrage after claiming women who dress provocatively ‘victimise men’

A celebrity lawyer caused outrage yesterday after accusing women of victimising men by dressing in a sexually provocative way.

Nick Freeman – nicknamed Mr Loophole for his success in getting clients off motoring cases – said girls who wear ‘racy’ underwear and skimpy tops made it clear they had one thing on their minds: sex.

The 54-year-old, whose clients have included David Beckham, said women who insisted they dressed in this way for themselves and not the opposite sex were liars and urged them to ‘take more responsibility’.

Psychologist Dr Linda Papadopoulos criticised Mr Freeman’s comments as illogical.

She said: ‘The idea that men are at the mercy of their testosterone and see a woman in a short skirt and think “I’m going in for the kill” is demeaning to men. It’s saying they’re not capable enough to ascertain for themselves what they really think or want.’

Mr Freeman expressed his views in a local newspaper column as he commented on a Slut Walk protest that took place in Manchester.

The marches started in April this year in Canada and have since sparked a number of rallies across the world. They are a campaign against the belief that any aspect of a woman’s appearance might explain or excuse rape.

Mr Freeman wrote: ‘Those taking part claimed women should be able to wear whatever they like in public – including racy red underwear – without being judged and their motives questioned. But, as a red-blooded alpha male, let me state unequivocally that I believe how a woman dresses (and behaves in that dress) tells a man what’s on her mind.’

Protest: Women take part in last week’s ‘Slut Walk’ described as a demonstration against those who blame the victims of sex crimes

Scantily clad: Women on Glasgow’s first ever Slut Walk protest

He makes clear he abhors rape and attacks on women, writing: ‘As a criminal defence lawyer, I’ve been involved with plenty of cases where those who have been dressed in a perfectly conventional way were still victims of this heinous crime. I also strongly believe Yes is Yes and No is No. But in the real world a woman who behaves or dresses in a sexually provocative way conveys a certain message. A message that ironically can victimise men.

‘So ladies, when you say you dress for yourselves and not for us males, I don’t believe you. It’s time to take responsibility for how you act and what you wear.’

Dr Papadopoulos said: ‘What he is doing is turning a man into an imbecile, who is unable to have a proper conversation to ascertain what the short skirt actually means.

‘There are a lot of ways we give each other messages but one of the clear messages is verbal. How about men taking responsibility for how they act? There’s no evidence that more women are raped for wearing a short skirt than a long skirt.’

‘Lamentable’: Celebrity Lawyer John Freeman criticised women taking part in last week’s Slut Walk demonstrations

Her stance was backed by satirist and contributor to The F Word, an online feminist magazine, Kate Smurthwaite. She said: ‘Nick Freeman’s remarks are utterly repugnant and insulting to men, the vast majority of whom are well capable of controlling their own behaviour.

‘If provocative or skimpy clothing left men unable to control themselves sunny beaches would be over-run with flailing would-be rapists. Instead we know from research that only four per cent of rapists are able to remember what their victim was wearing. Mr Freeman’s comments promote a myth and a dangerous one.’

Social commentator John Rushton said it was ‘dangerous territory’ to suggest a woman’s clothing encouraged sexual advances.

Mr Rushton, who leads a weekly programme on Talk Radio called The Life Doctor, said: ‘Just because a woman likes to dress a certain way and wants to look attractive does not mean she is sending out the message that she is available. This isn’t Saudi Arabia. Women should be able to dress however they want without it being deemed inappropriate or provocative.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2003380/Lawyer-Nick-Freeman-says-women-dress-provocatively-victimise-men.html#ixzz1PyxEM5Zt

This Sign Does Not Exist -DOOM! Magazine

theriotmag:

Let’s try this, for about the nine thousandth time:

No woman “asks” to be raped.

It doesn’t matter what she’s wearing.  It doesn’t matter if her shirt is cut low or her skirt is cut high, it doesn’t matter if she’s wearing “fuck-me pumps” or leather boots or fishnet stockings.  It doesn’t matter if she’s got a DD chest, curvy hips, eyes slathered with dark make-up or pout-y lips.

READ THE REST ON DOOM! MAGAZINE.

Reese Witherspoon Follow-Up

theriotmag:

Um, wow.  I am seeing a lot of responses to that piece I wrote.  Some positive, some negative.  And hey, if we start a dialog about slut-shaming and such, I feel like we’ve done something GOOD.

Lemme clarify one thing, though.  A lot of people are saying “She just doesn’t want girls taking naked pictures of themselves to get famous.”  Well, I don’t think it is Reese’s place to lecture people on the “right” way to get famous.  There are women who choose to get into pornography or to become sex workers.  There are women who are not ashamed of putting out nude pictures of themselves, nor SHOULD they be.  It is not Reese Witherspoon’s place to police those choices.  Basically saying that becoming famous via your sexuality is inherently WRONG is upsetting.

On top of that, she lectured GIRLS who do so.  Men have had private pictures leak, male celebrities have gotten press for their dicks being on the internet, male porn stars have launched film careers, but apparently it’s fine for GUYS to do that sort of thing, but not girls.  

Do I believe that we should hyper-sexualize young girls?  Hell no.  But I also don’t think we should treat nudity and sex like they are something “bad girls” do.  The idea is to give women agency over their own bodies and sex lives, which means attacking an INDUSTRY and SOCIAL IDEA, not the individual women who do such things, which was basically how Reese’s speech ended up sounding.

I’m not trying to attack Reese Witherspoon because I DON’T THINK SHE REALIZES THAT WHAT SHE SAID IS PROBLEMATIC.  But tacking on the idea of “good girls” at the end, when the term “good girl” is constantly used in order to police and shame girls IS problematic.  Let’s not bring back “being a good girl.”  Let’s bring back “having control over our own bodies and what we choose to do with them.”

Dear Reese Witherspoon: I am a ‘good girl’ who fucks

theriotmag:

Last night at the MTV Movie Awards, Reese Witherspoon was awarded a “Generation Award,” which is apparently their equivalent to “lifetime achievement.”  During her acceptance speech she said:

“Girls, I know it’s cool to be bad, but it’s also possible to make it in Hollywood without a reality show. When I came up in this business, if you made a sex tape, you were embarrassed and hid it under your bed. And if you took naked pictures of yourself on your cell phone, you would hide your face. For all the girls out there, it’s possible to be a good girl. I’m going to try to make it cool.”

Dear Reese Witherspoon:

My name is Ashly/newageamazon.  I run a feminist blog.  I write for a pop-culture website where I attempt to do my best to make feminism relevant and relate-able for young women who have been taught it is outdated and man-hating.   I donate to charities such as RAINN and Surfrider, sign petitions, help people with directions, open doors for other people, give up my bus seat for the elderly, volunteer at a local arts museum, pay my taxes and generally do a number of other things that I would consider “good.”  Largely, I consider myself a “good girl,” for these exact reasons.

And sometimes?  I like to fuck.

You say you want to make being a “good girl” cool again.  What you mean is, you want to make “policing other people’s choices” cool again.  You want to make “buying into a mainstream, patriarchal view of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ which is entirely dependent on your sexual activity and ‘modesty’” cool again.  You want to make “determining a woman’s worth entirely by whether or not we assume she’s a virgin” cool again.

THESE THINGS HAVE NEVER BEEN COOL.  They have been acceptable (news flash, they ARE still acceptable), they have been NORMAL (once again, they still ARE) but they have never been COOL.  I am assuming you meant well by your speech, but you are, unfortunately, buying into the same social shit you THINK you are speaking out against: that there is a line between “good” and “bad” girls, that every Taylor Swift song ever is how life actually works and that women should be ashamed of our bodies and our sexual interests.

You didn’t speak out against the people who choose to leak women’s naked photos.  You didn’t speak out against the people who take advantage of women, especially young women, to inundate them in a “Girls Gone Wild” culture and exploit them.  You spoke out against WOMEN, not the culture that objectifies us and teaches us we have to be virgins who fuck all the time.  But who can blame the predators for being predatory when it’s much easier to blame the prey?  Let’s not point out that women are handed a “good girl/bad girl” dichotomy in order to shame, control and confuse us, let’s just insist they should always belong to the “good girl” ideal.

Well, like I said.  I am a good girl.  And I like fucking.  

I’m pissed off that you choose to make a speech like this, but I know it’s not uncommon.  Some day, I will in fact find a way to send you and a number of other celebrity women (including, but not limited to, Taylor Swift, Beyonce and Katy Perry) a copy of Full Frontal Feminism by Jessica Valenti in hopes that you’ll understand why there’s really no such thing as a “good” girl.  There’s virgins, there’s non-virgins and there’s the part where what we do with our bodies DOESN’T FUCKING AFFECT who we are as people.

Oh, and congratulations on your lifetime achievement award.

Yours Truly, at 

The New Age Amazon

She may not have meant it the way it came out, but the result is barely a step above Jordin Sparks (who also meant well and admits to expressing herself very badly)  blurting out, “I just have one thing to say about promise rings. It’s not bad to wear a promise ring, because not everybody — guy or girl — wants to be a slut.”

The Real Face Of Rapists (Trigger Warning)

droppingthefbomb:

There has been quite a few discussion on why telling someone to be safe, and avoid getting themselves in bad situation, is NOT victim blaming.

Sit down and listen.

This is still victim blaming.  You are still perpetuating Rape Culture.

I have to make this distinction clear: there is a difference between sex and rape. There is a difference between having sex and being raped. Rapists are not sluts. Sluts (by societies general definition) is someone who has consensual sex frequently. When a rapist is raping someone, they are not having sex with their victim… They are torturing them. Rape is a human rights violation and it defined as a form of torture by International Criminal Courts.

There is this myth that rapists have this uncontrollable sex urge and this is why they rape. If you believe this, re-read my previous paragraph.  And I would urge you to go read about Groths study on Rapists (1979) and several others!

He interviewed 500 men convicted of rape and found that:

• 55% of them were “power rapists” meaning rape was a demonstration of their power over their victim and a way of showing their hyper-masculinity
• 40% were “anger rapists”, and their aim was to humiliate their victims and hurt them for revenge
• 5% were classified as “sadistic rapists”, these men were sexually aroused by dominance and violence, and they took pleasure from their victims pain.

Groths study showed that rapists tended not to be sexually aroused either before, during or after the rape. This is why there are several incidence were the rapists had to obtain an erection by masturbation or forcing their victims to sexually arouse them. There is no “uncontrollable urge.” Rapists are not losing any power of themselves, they are gaining it. 

Yet, a lot of people think they are helping by telling people not to avoid “risky behavior”

I just have to show you how impractical this is.

• In the UK fewer than 17% of rape are committed by strangers. And only 13 percent take place in a public space. Half of all female murder victims world- wide are killed by a current or former partner. And most rape victims KNOW THEIR ATTACKER.

Yet in the UK 54.4% of assaults reported in the press were committed by strangers and always in public. 

• In America 73% of sexual assaults are committed by a non-stranger. 38% of rapists are friends or acquaintances of the victims. 28% are intimate partners of the victims. 7% are relatives of the victims. 6 in 10 rapes occur in the home of the victim, or in the home of a friend or relative of the victim.  

Tell me how I am supposed to avoid risky behaviour in this instance. The “judgement prevents rape” argument falters in reality, at least 73% of the time.  

These people were not in any RISKY BEHAVIOUR. They was no “deviant” person hiding behind the bushes ready to pounce. Stop reinforcing the idea that rapists are hiding in parking garages or in the often-called-upon “dark alley.” the assumption that rape, on the whole, happens when someone leaves a bar with a stranger.  These rapes do happen, and are still entirely problematic, but they are not the norm.

 As the statistics show, most victims know their rapist, and most rapes occur in a home setting.  Statistically, you are more likely to be raped by your boyfriend or husband than you are by a stranger. So should I avoid having a boyfriend or a husband as this is more likely to get me raped?  

I agree that People do act in the interest of their own safety, regardless of gender.  We could say, “Stay out of that dark alley!” but you probably already are for the most part.  Any of the things that we could think of suggesting had nothing to do with rape at all, but instead with protecting general personal safety, which is something people of both genders do already for the most part. 

The idea if you dress in sexy attire, you are making yourself more at risk is complete and utter bullshit.  People are raped in sexy, going out ensembles, but they are also raped in sweatpants, baggy tee shirts, burqas, and suits.  Dress does not imply consent, and historically rapists do not appear to put much thought into what a victim is wearing in deciding if they should rape them or not.   

I’ve even seen arguments of people suggesting that women and girls should avoid hanging out unsupervised in all-male groups, or hanging out one-on-one with male friends.  PLEASE TRY NOT TO TRIP OVER THAT LOW BAR YOU HAVE SET FOR ALL MEN. This argument is incredibly insulting to men.  It implies that men have no moral compass that would incite them to stop one friend from raping another, and that they are entirely out of control of their ability to monitor their own behavior.

The first thing we need to be able to do if we want to have honest, open discussion about rape is challenge the assumptions we have about where rape happens and who commits it. 

And when discussing Rape Culture, just ask yourself: Who feels more comfortable with my assertions? The rapists or the Rape Victim/Survivor.