“The blade is a phallic symbol, and Kylo penetrating her with it foreshadows their sexual union. Rey’s gaping wound symbolizes her lost virginity, and also her vagina with which she will give birth to his Skywalker babies.”
Her mother Cheryl, 66, remains behind, a diminutive woman with dark hair pulled up in a bun. She chooses her words carefully. “It’s never left her. Every day, she lives it,” she says. “There were times when she would call me and his – he would be on a billboard or whatever, and she would just completely disintegrate. Having to walk into a store to get a pint of milk, and you’ve got his picture everywhere. (…) He’s the soccer god that everybody thinks is just perfect and flawless. (…) And she can’t even get out of bed some days.” Cheryl Mayorga shakes her head. “It’s just wrong. We’re behind her 100 percent.”
I believe Kathryn Mayorga. Do you?
I know this is scooting very close to the “omg why is no one reblogging this” territory, but the fact how little waves this is making in the football fandom is honestly terrifying to me.
People here make social justice issues out of every single thing, from bad interview quotes to that time someone thought Pulisic was dating a Trump supporter (he wasn’t) to “is it racist to say you don’t want your club to promote inhumane regimes overseas?”
But now one of if not the most famous player of this sport gets accused of rape and there is almost nothing. This story has been out for days. It’s not some vague, easily dismissed “he said she said” situation.
One of the leading investigative newspapers of Europe has published an article making very credible claims that accuse him of rape. At least 20 people were involved with the fact-checking over multiple weeks, according to Spiegel. The victim herself and multiple family members are quoted verbatim, Her story matches the results of a rape kit taken at the time (which is quoted in the article) as well as the original police report (which Spiegel also posted), filed one day after the assault, where she accuses a world famous athlete of raping her but doesn’t want to disclose his name because she was scared of the repercussions. Photos exist of her with Ronaldo from the day of the rape. A forensic psychiatrist’s evaluation is quoted that confirms she suffers from PTSD due to the rape.
Spiegel has, thanks to Football Leaks, papers proving that Ronaldo hired a team of “Reputation Specialists” that followed her and her family around in order to make her appear unstable and to dissuade her from pressing charges. Spiegel also has E-Mails from Ronaldo to his lawyer where freely admits she said “no” and told him to stop multiple times before and during the rape.
Honestly this is the clearest and best researched rape accusation that I have ever come across. And I see so many fangirls on here keep posting Ronaldo pics and ignoring this because it’s inconvient for them when it’s their fave.
(Tw for rape, kidnapping, assault, racism & the shitty justice system)
so a man in Anchorage named Justin Schneider (i share the name because he needs his reputation destroyed) kidnapped a native alaskan woman, choked and beat her unconscious, then raped her and left her on the side of the road. hes received a plea deal in which he will get no jail time, will not be required to register as a sex offender, and was not even charged for the sexual assault. The DA said him losing his job over it was “akin to a life sentence” and that this is his “one pass.”
obviously, a big reason he got off is because he’s a white guy and she’s a woman of color.
Anyway, this guy needs his life and reputation destroyed since the justice system failed at their job of doing so. that’s why im sharing this.
@sophrosynic Obviously reclamation is not universal. Words in such common usage by the community such as “gay” and “dyke” are still slurs in many contexts and places, but we don’t see the “queer is a slur” crowd running around trying to shut down these terms.
Also, queer can’t be an umbrella term for all people who are not straight/not cis, and the claim that we’re trying to use it to describe the whole LGBT+ community is false. “Queer” is associated with radical activism and resistance to heteronormativity specifically as a reaction to mainstream LGBT+ politics, so it can’t be replaced with LGBT+ and vice versa.
If you’re not queer then you’re not queer. Simple as that.
Except the problem with the word queer has never really been what you’re saying here. No one is saying that people who use the term as an identity can’t do that, or that the word has to be scrubbed entirely out of existence even in historical & certain contemporary contexts. What people have overwhelmingly tried to critique are the politics of reclamation that people ascribe to when it comes to the word queer, specifically the idea that reclaiming a slur on a personal level somehow stops it from being a slur, period, when this is really not true.
It’s not comparable to words like ‘gay’ or ‘d*ke’, mainly because the word gay is not an analogous slur to begin with, and ‘d*ke’ is a slur that is overwhelmingly derogatory towards lesbians and no one else. Many of the lesbians who use the term don’t deny that it’s still a slur, regardless of their own personal usage of the word, which is exactly why non-lesbians are not allowed to use it to refer to lesbians, even if said lesbian happens to use the word as a personal descriptor.
It’s great that you’re happy with identifying as queer, and that this is empowering to you. That’s your personal decision, and no one should dictate to you otherwise on the subject. But it’s not a “reclaimed” slur, and it hasn’t stopped being a slur because some folks have chosen to identify as such. It’s still a slur. Acknowledging that is important.
So not being called queer against your wishes isn’t enough for you. Here you are getting honest, telling me you want it to be relegated to historical and **limited** contemporary contexts. You want us to sharply cut back on its use, to the personal and whatever specific contents you decree.
Like, buddy, of course it’s a slur. If it wasn’t a slur it would never have had to be reclaimed. The reclamation is part of the radical act, turning derision and hatred and violence against us into strength. And no it’s not just personal, it’s a political movement with a lot of history–bold of you to try to erase that on your say-so lmao. Queer is purposefully not respectable like LGBT+ because it is meant to be a giant fuck you to heteronormativity. It is a different politics and replacing it with a word that is not a slur misses the entire point. You don’t like that it’s a slur? Then stay in your respectable LGBT+ boxes where you never have to hear a bad word with bad connotations. Queer isn’t for you and it’s not about you.
You want to know what some of the biggest Pride events in my country are? Queer Culture Festival and Queer Parade. Not Gay Pride, because we reject the idea that cis gay men and cis lesbians represent us all. Not LGBT+ because we don’t all fit into neat categories, and no one gets to play cute little tricks like “Drop the T” or “A is for Ally.” Queer, because we are an indivisible whole, and those who want to pull shit like “Lesbian, not queer” know to stay home. We’re not changing that just because you have an issue with how inclusive the term is and the fact that dirty little aceys can claim it just as easily as you.
We’re here. We’re queer. Cover your damned ears and stay in your fucking lane.
“Here you are getting honest, telling me you want it to be relegated to historical and **limited** contemporary contexts. You want us to sharply cut back on its use, to the personal and whatever specific contents you decree.“
That’s really not what I said? I was offering clarification and an understanding that there are always going to be contexts where the word queer is required and necessary and important, especially if you’re referring to, like you mentioned, “a political movement with a lot of history.”
Also, I didn’t use the word “limited”–you chose to add that, so maybe don’t put words in my mouth? Neither did I say that I wanted to “sharply cut back on its use”–you chose to add that take yourself, so acting like I said or meant that in some way is to have read my response in really bad faith.
“The reclamation is part of the radical act, turning derision and hatred and violence against us into strength.“
Except this isn’t actually all that simple, which was the whole point of my response. It’s much more complicated than that, especially given the complex history and evolution of the movement to begin with, as well as the complex history and usage of the word ‘queer’. This is what I mean when I say that this is a perspective that works for you, but isn’t one that’s shared across the board, especially when you consider the full breadth of the history of queer activism as a whole.
Acting like “reclamation” in general falls neatly into two groups where one group is happy with the word as an identifier, and the other group is not doesn’t even come anywhere close to the actual reality. This perspective wrt “reclamation” has always been super ignorant of the variety of ways in which the word ‘queer’ has been used and is still used today. Quoting from this post:
people have been debating the political efficacy and ethical concerns of using the word “queer” as a self-identifier, unifying term to describe populations, and/or theoretical framework for decades. these debates are not about two sides, where one side thinks it’s great and the other thinks it’s terrible and everybody in either camp agrees with everybody else in their camp.
The perspective also ignores the fact that perspectives on things like queer history/theory/activism are not monoliths, not even within the same organization, let alone the movement. The post I quoted from offers a number of those perspectives from a bunch of different sources, and even that doesn’t come close to just how many varied viewpoints there are, even from the people who were at the forefront of activism in the 90s.
So when I said that “reclamation is not universal.” I don’t just mean that there are some people who are unhappy with and don’t identify with the word ‘queer.’ I meant that there’s a spectrum of views, where the idea of “reclaiming the word” represents just one of them. This is what I meant when I said that it’s great that it works for you, and that this is your perspective, but this is nowhere near representative of the views of the queer movement as a whole. Even if that movement happens to have the word ‘queer’ in the title.
Again, to quote from the same post:
“queer” is complicated, it has multiple histories and meanings, and not accounting for that, especially when talking as if you’re an expert on the issue, is an enormous failure. lgbtq people have rich and complex histories and cultures. if you’re not willing to account for that, then get out of the business of trying to tell our stories.
“Queer is purposefully not respectable like LGBT+ because it is meant to be a giant fuck you to heteronormativity. It is a different politics and replacing it with a word that is not a slur misses the entire point. You don’t like that it’s a slur? Then stay in your respectable LGBT+ boxes where you never have to hear a bad word with bad connotations.“
Holy shit, this is an entire mess. I didn’t address this implication in your original response, because I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt, but now that you’ve set this down so clearly, it’s worth responding to.
In what world are LGBT+ “respectable” and “tidy” categories of identification? Do you not realize what a profoundly bad take it is to imply that identifying as “queer” makes you somehow more radical in your subsequent politics? Do you realize what you’re saying when you say that LGBT+ is somehow less of a giant fuck you to heteronormativity? And do you even understand where this criticism of the LGBT+ movement as “heteronormative” even emerged from to begin with?
The implication that people who might not want to identify as queer for a variety of reasons are somehow less radical in their identities and their rejection of heteronormativity isn’t just a bad, incorrect take. It’s a deeply homophobic one. If your intention is to use the word queer in a way that encompasses and unifies radical politics against heteronormativity, then I’m gonna tell you flat out that the way you’re using it here is not only wrong, but also immensely disrespectful to the very movement you think it describes, as well as the people who are a part of it.
And like, people have criticized this exact take on multiple occasions because of its limitations and also because it’s one of the most fundamental pitfalls of “queer politics/theory/activism” as a whole. Not only because it’s been a framework that has historically not accounted for things like “race, gender, class” etc, but also because it does the exact thing that you claim it doesn’t do, which is sanitize everyone’s identities into a nebulous, neatly defined little category that doesn’t even account for the sheer diversity of peoples’ identities:
There is something odd, suspiciously odd, about the rapidity with which queer theory–whose claim to radical politics derived from its anti-assimilationist posture, from its shocking embrace of the abnormal and the marginal– has been embraced by, canonized by, and absorbed into our (largely heterosexual) institutions of knowledge, as lesbian and gay studies never were. Despite its implicit (and false) portrayal of lesbian and gay studies as liberal, assimilationist, and accommodating of the status quo, queer theory has proven to be much more congenial to established institutions of the liberal academy.
[…]
The next step was to despecify the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or transgressive content of queerness, thereby abstracting “queer” and turning it into a generic badge of subversiveness, a more trendy version of “liberal”: if it’s queer, it’s politically oppositional, so everyone who claims to be progressive has a vested interest in owning a share of it
“Queer, because we are an indivisible whole, and those who want to pull shit like “Lesbian, not queer” know to stay home.“
And speaking of homophobia, it really didn’t take you very long to break out the garden variety lesbophobia now did it? I mean, I would say I’m surprised, but I’m not. How are you honestly going to start off with the premise that “queer = inclusive” and then say something like “lesbians know to stay home if they don’t like it”? The fact that you typed this shit out with a straight face and zero awareness is emblematic of nearly everything that’s wrong with popular Tumblr discourse about the word queer, lol.
It’s laughable that you state that “queer = indivisible whole,” except for those lesbians who should stay home if they don’t agree with you, because they’re probably too respectably heteronormative anyway. If your so-called “queer activism” and radical politics is one that seeks to exclude people, then it’s not radical, or inclusive, and it’s not activism. It’s just stale, rehashed bigotry.
Also, have you actually spoken to local Korean activists at length, aside from Pride? Because if you sincerely believe that your dumpster fire of a take is somehow universal among the community, then you’re in for a really shocking eye-opener.
“We’re here. We’re queer. Cover your damned ears and stay in your fucking lane.“
That’s cute. Except the way you’re using the phrase “we’re here, we’re queer” is entirely divorced from its actual historical context. So maybe instead of throwing this around like a gotcha, you can spend some time reading up on the history of this chant and how it was born from HIV/AIDS activism, and how it isn’t actually a cutesy little catch-all snap back for people to fling around when they don’t have a leg to stand on.
If “certain contemporary contexts” doesn’t sound limiting to you and you didn’t mean it that way, then fine. You already agreed that it’s okay for people to identify as queer, that it’s a political movement, and that it’s okay to use it. I agreed that it is a slur–a slur that, whatever its level of reclamation, we agree is all right for personal, political, and academic use, though its level of efficacy may be in dispute (more on that later). According to you, you didn’t even mean to tell people to limit its use when you went all “it’s a sluuuuur.” (Jeesh, we know!)
So what was even the point? What’s the point of contention here? You just completely change the subject from queer being a slur to critiques of the queer movement and the fact that my opinion isn’t universal. Why? Because you need to keep this “conversation” going somehow? Because you need to waste more of my time by shifting the conversation every time we reach an agreement?
I never claimed my opinion is universal or that I speak for the whole movement, because who can? Do you speak for the whole LGBT+ movement? The best “rebuttal” you can give is that it’s not that universal or simple, which is… okay? What movement is simple and homogenous? What theory is free from problems? If you were going to come at me about the efficacy of queer as a label and a movement then you could have done that from the start. You didn’t need to act like its being a slur was the end of the argument then move on to substantive critique when we reach an agreement on that. These critiques are valid and important but they really weren’t the point.
Also, you’re being deliberately obtuse if you think my stating the aspirations and background of (some in the) queer movement is an attempt to pin it down to one thing. I was explaining why a slur can still be useful and be worth reclamation and make a political statement–and you agreed. Your points of contention seems to be that it’s not that effective and there isn’t broad agreement, but again, that’s a different conversation that I’m not sure why you’re even bringing into a post about whether it’s okay to continue to use queer. It looks like we’re in agreement: It is! That was the whole point of the OP! To me the fact that you’re dragging things on by adding a ton of irrelevant stuff makes it look suspiciously like you’re still trying to say it shouldn’t be used, while also insisting that’s not what you mean. Maybe talk out of just one side of your mouth?
“The implication that people who might not want to identify as queer
for a variety of reasons are somehow less radical in their identities
and their rejection of heteronormativity isn’t just a bad, incorrect
take. It’s a deeply homophobic one. If your intention is to use the word
queer in a way that encompasses and unifies radical politics against
heteronormativity, then I’m gonna tell you flat out that the way you’re
using it here is not only wrong, but also immensely disrespectful to the
very movement you think it describes, as well as the people who are a
part of it.“
Holy strawmannig, Batman! Like, maybe read what I actually said? I was responding to people like you who object to its use for being a slur. Which you say you’re not. So what’s the argument here, again? I have already said on this very thread that you have reblogged that it’s not an umbrella term and cannot replace LGBT+, and in fact reacts against mainstream LGBT+ politics (M A I N S T R E A M which is by definition not radical, what even are words). That is why, I argued, they are not interchangeable and queer should continue to be in use. Way to accuse me of saying the exact opposite of what I said.
Thanks for the sources, like I said these are really important and good critiques but, again, doesn’t really pertain to this discussion, which is about the usage of “queer.”
“it really didn’t take you very long to break out the garden variety lesbophobia now did it?”
Zomggggg are you really ignorant of what “lesbian, not queer” was about or are you purposefully obscuring it? It’s the same slogan used by the “Get the L Out” people, a.k.a. TERFs, which is what they turned to after “Drop the T” failed. Here it is from the “Get the L Out” campaign’s own website (link):
We believe that lesbian rights are under attack by the trans movement and we encourage lesbians everywhere to leave the LGBT and form their own independent movement …
“Lesbian not queer” is literally AT THE TOP OF THEIR WEBSITE. Did you really think these peeps are just stopping at not identifying as queer, that they are critiquing the problems of the queer movement in good faith? Did you really think they’re not flaming transphobes?
Jesus H. Christ, this is how aphobia and exclusionism become gateway drugs to TERF thinking and help mainstream their rhetoric. Get your head out of your ass and stop conflating pushback to transphobia with lesbophobia. That is literal TERF talk. You don’t seem like a transphobe yourself but what you’re doing here is called being a useful idiot.
“So what was even the point? What’s the point of contention here?“
My initial issue with what you wrote was the idea that the word queer has been “thoroughly reclaimed” because it’s been used in terms like “queer theory” and “queer activism” etc. I pointed out that this is really not how reclamation of a slur works, and you seemingly agreed, and it would have stopped there, but then you careened on and exposed the exact variety of “queer politics” that you ascribe to (not all of them are the same btw), hence my subsequent response with the sources critiquing your specific variant of queer politics and its efficacy lol (not the efficacy of queer as a label and a movement as a whole).
It wasn’t the initial point of contention for sure. Heck, I was even willing to ignore the way that you created a shitty dichotomy between “LGBT+ politics” and “queer politics” in your initial response, but again, you were committed to misunderstanding what I wrote, and then you dug your hole deeper in the process. But I’m the one who shifted the goalposts, right?
“I have already said on this very thread that you have reblogged that it’s not an umbrella term and cannot replace LGBT+, and in fact reacts against mainstream LGBT+ politics (M A I N S T R E A M which is by definition not radical, what even is reading comprehension).“
I think it’s funny that you’re complaining about me lacking reading comprehension when you honestly don’t seem to understand that words have actual meanings, and they don’t just mean what you want them to mean.
Where did I ever say that my complaint was about this idea that queer is going to replace LGBT+ as a label? I know that’s not what you meant. That’s not what my objection to what you wrote is about. My objection is entirely rooted in the fact that you literally stated things like, “Queer is purposefully not respectable like LGBT+” and that if people don’t like it they should, “stay in your respectable LGBT+ boxes where you never have to hear a bad word with bad connotations.” And also how you said, explicitly, that LGBT+ identities are “tidy” and “respectable” and that “queer activism was born as a reaction to mainstream LGBT+ activism.”
Like, you jump straight to accusing me of strawmanning your argument when, frankly, there’s nothing to strawman to begin with. I know what you wrote. You know what you wrote. And what you wrote is fucking stupid. The idea that “queer politics” is inherently more radical and that the mainstream LGBT+ movement is by contrast “respectable” is false. It’s an idea that has an actual meaning and a history behind it, and it’s been criticized on multiple occasions for being flawed and limited in both thinking and practice, not only because it’s homophobic, but also because it’s racist and lacks any type of intersectional analysis regarding the diversity of identities in the movement to begin with.
The idea that “mainstream =/= radical” in the sense that you’ve used it here is also rooted in the context of HIV/AIDS activism and its subsequent aftermath. The queer activist movement that emerged as a reaction to mainstream LGBT+ politics was incredibly limited in its scope, even as it claimed to be broader by virtue of its lack of respectability. My objection was never about the fact that I thought queer was meant to replace LGBT+. My objection has always been the way you’ve chosen to characterize the two as “respectable vs. not respectable” without actually considering what this has meant historically and in practice today. *That’s* what my sources were for.
Even if your intentions behind the usage of these terms is benign, the fact remains that they came from somewhere, and it would be worthwhile for you to consider exactly why you conceptualize the mainstream LGBT+ movements and the queer activist movements in these exact terms. Just saying. If I were the type to argue as you do, I’d also say that this is the gateway drugs to racist thinking that lacks in any meaningful intersectional analysis. But I’m not an asshole. So there’s that.
The especially funny thing is that, as you pointed out, this was never the original argument to begin with. The whole conversation about “queer as a label and a movement” would have remained a whole different one, if and only if you hadn’t gone straight ahead and exposed your own self in the process of misunderstanding and acting like a douchebag about what I wrote in the first place lmao. You literally went into the details of what you think queer politics is on your own, and then you complained about me responding to your shit for some reason.
“Jesus H. Christ, this is how aphobia and exclusionism become gateway drugs to TERF thinking and help mainstream their rhetoric “
Are you fucking shitting me? You accuse me of shifting goalposts? When did this conversation become about aphobia and exclusionism? Even setting aside the fact that this is a fucking appalling take that multipletrans lesbianson this website have addressed, I haven’t referenced either aphobia or exclusionism once in my responses. You’re the one who brought this up. So are you going to complain again about how I’m straying from the point and shifting the goal posts or what?
So I had a chance to look at the links you so thoughtfully provided, and I’m laughing hard because none of what you sent me rebuts my characterization of the history at all.
This article, linked by the post whose link you provided says in the very first page (link to PDF, emphases mine):
If you don’t identify as queer, have trauma with it or have other objections to it, then we’re not including you when we say “queer community.” Full stop. Also nearly every word LGBTQ+ people have been using for themselves have been slurs at some point, or still are used as such. If you think an alternative would be better, present one and fight for it to be used. Do what you need to do to protect your mental health, filter words, block people, but don’t tell people who need an inclusive term that they can’t have their own identity because you personally object to a word that has been so thoroughly reclaimed that there are “queer studies” and “queer theory.”
[The resignation of three Black board members from the largest AIDS organization in the world] raises mixed emotions for me, for it points to the continuing practice of racism many of us experience on a daily basis in lesbian and gay communities. But just as disturbingly it also highlights the limits of a lesbian and gay political agenda based on a civil rights strategy, where assimilation into, and replication of, dominant institutions are the goals. Many of us continue to search for a new political direction and agenda, one that does not focus on integration into dominant structures but instead seeks to transform the basic fabric and hierarchies that allow systems of oppression to persist and operate efficiently. For some of us, such a challenge to traditional gay and lesbian politics was offered by the idea of queer politics.
It’s almost like this article…. confirms the stance… that many saw queer politics as an alternative to assimilationist gay and lesbian politics? It may not be a monolithic view (which I never claimed it was, that’s all you), but it is a prominent enough view to be discussed in academic articles. It’s almost like your characterization of queer as “never” meaning what I said it meant is like… false and ahistorical or something.
In the Mark Halperin article (link), the portion you quoted is talking about limitations and problems of queer theory being institutionalized, which like I said is a valid critique, but doesn’t rebut anything I said. The paragraph right before that talks about the good that queer theory did, and Halperin himself is a prominent queer theorist.
I think your main objection is that I’m shitting on LGBT+ politics as a whole based on a false dichotomy with queer politics, but I’m not. When did I ever claim queer politics was the only radical politics for non-straight/non-cis people? I was responding to the kind of LGBT+ politics YOU seemed to endorse (and that queer activists from the late 80s were reacting to) when you appeared to denigrate the entire idea and existence of queer politics, and the usage of “queer” itself, outside purely personal identification choices. If that’s not what you meant, then there was really no point to this whole tiresome exchange.
When did this conversation become about aphobia and exclusionism?
Are you going to just ignore the part where you defended actual TERFs and called me lesbophobic for pointing out that people spouting out-and-out transphobia should not be welcome at Pride? Since you rightfully object to these transphobes’ bigoted positions, where did your terrifying bout of stupidity come from if not your dislike of the queer label and its inclusiveness of aces?
Or are you still in denial that “lesbian not queer” is a TERF thing? Are you still so attached to anti-queer rhetoric that you’re willing to accept them as good-faith critics of queer politics and identification? Here’s an article that’s actually friendly to the “get the l out” protesters (link, endorsement of transphobia at linked article) where, yes, it explicitly says “lesbian not queer” was one of their slogans. If you don’t think the stance that trans inclusion is a plot for trans women to rape cis lesbians is not violently transmisogynistic, please let me know so I can block you and never interact again.
rey’s expression when she sees kylo taking off his mask…”
I wonder if what’s throwing people off is that normally a scene like this WOULD be overtly sexual. People are expecting to see it because it is so stupidly common in modern media and therefore are seeing it even when it’s not there.
Ding ding ding ding ding! I believe that is EXACTLY what is going on. Which makes a lot of fandom discourse fraught with peril because what’s being argued about is not necessarily what was shown in the script / novelization / film, but what the viewer expects or believes must have been intended by the characters, the actors or the filmmakers in some subtle or even subconscious way because that’s just how these things go. And there’s really no way to argue with that, even if one happens to disagree.
Yes ding ding, but also oops on the filmmakers part. When such a huge swath of filmgoers interpret the moment as thus, the filmmakers missed. They are as aware of this trope as you and I, or more so, and should have foreseen this reaction and even revised to dodge. I think.
Full disclosure: the two people above me in this post are my friends. I’m not trying to start something, because I know we are coming at this from a mostly similar direction. But I have been sitting on a mass of feelings for hours, and I would like to get something off my chest. Here is your dissenting opinion:
You don’t get to tell me what I saw.
I saw a girl strapped to a chair, and I heard a guy say “You know I can take whatever I want”, and then, worse, I heard him say, “Don’t worry, I feel it too.”
And it wasn’t super gross. And it sure as hell wasn’t sexy. It was barely even sexualized. It was this casual, brutal, cold villainy, and more importantly: it was a fucking violation. Rape is not the same as sex, is not limited to sex (especially in a genre that thrives on metaphor and allegory), and what Ren did to Poe and to Rey (before she metaphorically kicked him in the balls), was rape.
He went into her dreams before she drove him out. Poe screamed in pain, and when Ren left him, he was unconscious.
It’s easy enough to silence girls (or boys, for that matter) when they tell you they have been assaulted. We see it happen all the time. “Are you sure?” “But what if he meant?” “I’m sure she didn’t” “It’s such a good family.”
You don’t get to tell me that I interpreted the scene wrong because of what I’m used to. You don’t get to tell me that it’s the writer’s fault for the way I feel. You don’t get to tell me that I was tricked or deceived or too stupid to notice what was really going on.
You don’t get to tell me what I saw.
Definitely buying her Padme book now. This is SPOT ON.
Hurriyet Daily News reports that Albayrak had been hired to photograph the July 5th wedding at Turgut Özal Nature Park in the eastern Turkish province of Malatya. On the day of, when he noticed that the bride-to-be didn’t look like an adult, he asked the groom her age and learned that she was only 15.
“The groom had come to my studio some two weeks ago and was alone,” Albayrak tells the Daily News. “I saw the bride for the first time at the wedding. She’s a child, and I felt her fear because she was trembling.”
Albayrak then reportedly refused to continue as the wedding photographer and attempted to stop the wedding.
The argument soon turned physical when the groom attacked him as he was attempting to leave, Albayrak says. The photographer ended up breaking the client’s nose in the fight, according to local reports.
Albayrak confirmed the reports in a Facebook post, which has been met with widespread approval, attracting thousands of Likes and hundreds of overwhelmingly positive comments.
“I wish this had never happened, but it did,” Albayrak writes. “And if you were to ask me if I’d do the same thing again, I’d say ‘yes.’ Child brides are [victims] of child abuse and no power on earth can make me photograph a child in a wedding gown.”
The legal minimum age for marriage in Turkey is 18-years-old for both sexes, and child marriage is punishable by imprisonment for men who marry underage girls. Despite being outlawed, however, child marriage is still prevalent in the country and remains a controversial political issue.
Moses and Tzipporah’s relationship as portrayed in the 1998 animated film The Prince of Egypt is
one of my favorites of all time. While romantic, it is not a
relationship focused solely on romance. Rather the story of their love
is told through the stories of their families and spirituality, making for a well-rounded and satisfying narrative.
Moses and
Tzipporah first meet as captives in Egypt. Yes, Moses was a captive in
Egypt, I will fight you on this, he just did not know it yet. Her bonds
were imposed by physical force and visible; his were imposed by
secrecy and deceit, and came in the form of the attachments he was made
to develop to a family that had enslaved and slaughtered his people.
The
characters’ first interactions take place within full view of Moses’s
Egyptian royal family, from Ramses “giving” Tzipporah to his brother to
their mother Batya’s disappointment at the way Moses humiliated the
captive Tzipporah.
Although there is
love in this family, it has become deeply sickened by the violence and
subjugation that its power is built upon. We see the how the
overwhelming desire to uphold that power drives a wedge between Ramses
and his father, how the rape and humiliation of a captive woman becomes a
game between brothers, and how a mother is made to keep silent at the
mistreatment of a woman she feels sympathy for. Then there is the fact
that Moses’s love for this family is built on a monstrous lie, as
discussed above.
The Egyptian royal family, whose closest
family interactions have become warped and poisoned by slavery, is a
place both Tzipporah and Moses eventually escape at their separate
times. Tzipporah’s escape and Moses’s facilitation of it is their first
positive interaction, a major reason for her and her people’s acceptance
of Moses later on. It is also a direct precursor to and catalyst for Moses’s
own departure. Helping Tzipporah escape is how he found out about his
enslaved Hebrew family, after all.
After their escape from
Egypt Tzipporah rejoins, and Moses later joins, her family and tribe.
This is where they start to heal from the trauma inflicted by their very
different periods of imprisonment, and this is also where they fall in
love.
The choice of music is significant here; the couple’s
Falling-in-Love Montage takes place entirely within a song, but it’s not
a song about romantic love. There is no award-bait ode to romance in
this movie, your “Tale as Old as Time,” “Part of Your World,” “Whole New
World” and so forth. Rather Moses and Tzipporah’s courtship takes place
within the song “Through Heaven’s Eyes,” a song about family and faith,
and about Moses finding belonging with the Midians.
Certainly Moses and Tzipporah have no shortage of intimate moments, like this…
…or thiiiis… (girl you have it bad)
…yet
their interactions always take place within the larger context of the
tribe, whether taking care of the herd or at one of the tribe’s
celebartions in full view of their loved ones. In this sense “Through
Heaven’s Eyes” could be analogous to “Fixer-Upper” from Frozen
where Kristoff’s troll family (as in actual trolls, not internet
nasties) advise him and Anna about having a relationship despite
personal imperfections, or “Something There” from Beauty and the Beast where the Beast’s servants talk about his and Belle’s growing feelings for each other.
“Through Heaven’s Eyes,” however, still differs from these third-party observations of romance in that it’s not a song about
romance–it’s about spirituality and community, and Moses and
Tzipporah’s relationship is an organic part of Moses’s integration into
the tribe. It showed him letting go of his old life as an Egyptian
prince and coming to love the deep sense of family and faith the Midians
embodied, to the extent that when he later convinced Tzipporah of his
mission from God he looked to her family as an example of the life he
wanted his people to have.
Though the story mostly focuses on
Moses healing and finding belonging, in an understated way I can see
Tzipporah healing, too. Not only does she get a neat payback in the form
of dropping him on his ass into water…
…she
also gets to process and reclaim her traumatic experiences in Egypt
through her growing friendship and later romance with Moses. She sees
his deep sense of shame and remorse at ever having been part of the
Egyptian ruling family, and she gets to know the man who helped her and
came to her with open hands holding nothing, having discarded every
trapping of power and wealth; not the man who mocked her from a place of
power, not the man who was expected to sexually enslave her, but the
good man he chose to be, the man she falls in love with.
The
intertwining of love, faith, and personal healing in their relationship
is brought home, literally, in a later scene when Moses runs straight to
Tzipporah after he had the visitation from God. Though we don’t hear
any lines here, we don’t need words–the way he talked so animatedly was
enough. We could tell how the vision had filled him with new purpose
and changed his life, and we sensed the closeness between him and
Tzipporah in the way he could talk to her about this momentous occasion,
holding back nothing because he knew he would be heard and believed. In turn, when Tzipporah expresed her own fears after hearing him out, he listened respectfully and made his case.
This
scene reminded me of Mohammed, the prophet of Islam, and how the first
person he went to after being being visited by the angel Gabriel was his
wife Khadijah. Mohammed, of course, unlike Moses as envisioned in the
show, was afraid and wanted Khadijah to cover him and comfort him.
Whether the initial reaction was elation or fear, though, you can tell
that for both these men their wives were their closest confidantes and
best friends. They shared in all things including matters of faith and
life-changing decisions.
Again, though the focus was on Moses, I
loved how Tzipporah’s decision to come with him was an enormous act of
courage in the events of the show. She was in captivity in Egypt
herself, where she would have been raped and kept in servitude, unable
to see her family ever again, if she had not managed to escape and had
Moses not helped her. To go back into the heart of that trauma could not
have been easy for her. She still did, and that alone speaks to the strength of their bond.
So far Moses and Tzipporah had been captives in
Egypt and had learned to be free again with Tzipporah’s Midianite family. Now, in their
return to Egypt, healed and transformed by family and faith, they were
ready to not only be free themselves but to bring freedom to others.
Thus their story becomes a story of the journey from captivity to
personal freedom, then from there to liberating others. It is the story
of true freedom realized, because Moses could not be truly free while
his family was in bondage–and because Moses was a part of Tzipporah and
her family, she could not be truly free either. That made the
Israelites’ freedom worth facing down their fears and trauma for.
The
song at the finale, “When You Believe,” not only ties off the story and
theme as a whole but also brings Moses and Tzipporah’s story full
circle. Where “Through Heaven’s Eyes” was about Moses integrating into
Tzipporah’s family, “When You Believe” is about Tzipporah becoming a
member of Moses’s family by joining and supporting them in their quest
for freedom, enduring the dangers and uncertainty alongside them. The way
Tzipporah and Miriam lead the singing harkens back to Jocheved’s lullaby
at the beginning of the movie, her fear and grief at having to send
baby Moses away and her prayer that they will reunite in freedom.
Jocheved’s sacrifice and courage are brought to culmination by her
daughter Miriam and daughter-in-law Tzipporah, showing that Tzipporah
along with Miriam is a successor to Jocheved’s legacy. The way female
characters lead these songs of yearning and joy for freedom also squarely
centers women in the struggle for liberation.
In this way we see Tzipporah and
Moses’s journey through their three families–as captives of Moses’s
Egyptian family, recovering from trauma through love and faith in the safety of
Tzipporah’s Midianite tribe, and finally fighting for the freedom of
Moses’s Hebrew family and people. They had to know both the pain of
captivity and the process of healing from that trauma in order to stand
for others’ freedom, and that liberation in turn was key to their recovery. Moses and Tzipporah’s story as individuals and as a
couple is also a story of family, faith, and freedom, and that’s what makes theirs
such a powerful love story.
It’s just fundamentalist conservatism with a gay hat. You’re not allowed to be sexual in any form until you’re over 18 and in a committed relationship with one person or otherwise, you’re a terrible person, don’t you know? So of course, you can’t be asexual as a teenager, teenagers are never sexual. /sarcasm
I really side-eye the people who claim that minors shouldn’t be IDing as ace, because they “shouldn’t be thinking of sex at all”.
Say a teenager does identify as asexual by mistake and then later realizes that they actually do experience sexual attraction. What actual harm comes of that?
People don’t just use labels for the hell of it. We use them because they give us something: a sense of normality, a sense that we’re not alone. It removes some of the pressure to act in a way that we’re not.
I wondered if I was asexual when I was sixteen. Unfortunately this was 1999, and I didn’t have access to a lot of the information readily available today. I let misinformation convince me that no, I was wrong, and I spent the next fifteen years thinking that there was something wrong with me.
Here’s what identifying as asexual did for me: it made me realize that I didn’t have to engage in performative sexual behavior to “prove” that I was normal. It made me realize that my lack of sexual desire isn’t something that I have to “fix”. It was something that allowed me to finally feel comfortable defining my relationships on my own terms and set boundaries without worrying that I was somehow “failing” as a partner. It let me accept myself for who I was and move on to other things.
So maybe there’s a teenager out there who identifies as asexual incorrectly. Maybe they’re a straight person who is just a late bloomer. Maybe they’re a gay person suffering from internalized homophobia. Maybe they’re a trans person with gender dysmorphia that affects their ability to deal with sexual desire.
Honestly, none of those examples sound like people who are ready to be having sex anyway. So what does it matter if they mistakenly identify as asexual for a while?
If the “asexual” label gives these hypothetical young people the comfort and sense of normality that they need in order to process whatever’s really going on without feeling pressure to engage in things they’re not ready for, that’s a good thing.
The asexual label isn’t a binding contract. It’s not like joining the priesthood and swearing off sex forever. It’s a label, and people are allowed to change them when they’re ready.
Mentions of child sexual abuse below
Can confirm, a dear friend with a history of sexual abuse identified as ace for a while when younger, and later realized he was gay. He is unequivocal that the ace label was helpful and healing to him at the time, and it in no way harmed him in the later process of discovering and exploring his sexual desire with his partners.
Also the idea that a csa and incest survivor like my friend “shouldn’t be thinking about sex” at a young age… like he had a choice?? That was why he ID’d as ace at the time, because he needed distance from his sexuality while he processed.
Clinging to a label and making it an immutable part of one’s identity no matter what is harmful. Moving on from a label when it no longer fits is not. For some people the ace identity will be a lifelong home, for others it will be a temporary rest stop on their journey. And that’s okay.
anyways……. shout out to all the ace people this pride month. ur sexuality deserves to be accepted alongside the rest of us. i love yall so much, and i want yall to know that there’s a whole community here who loves you too.
lgb community isn’t a dumpster to put “weird” people. Take you kweerness away from me.
“lgb” found the terf
Hey everyone @phalloid-destroyer is Terf who doesn’t belong in our (LGBT+) community.
Don’t engage. Block and Report.
Keep Pride Safe, Inclusive & Terf-Free
No, keep Pride safe and free from violence and homophobia. Imprison queers and trans activists.
The more time passes the less I wanna be part of the lgb
“LGB” … TERFs, TERFs everywhere 😒
stay in your LGB trashcan, you’re not invited to our LGBT luxury yacht AND my birthday party
“Imprison queers and trans activists” is really a thing that oozed out of a TERF’s fingertips. Shocking.
Be sure to block spencer-shayy along with other TERFs, she is a violent transphobe and rape apologist who used a trans man’s rape to misgender trans and enby people and said that trans men and AFAB enbye were “cowardly” and trying to “opt out of” misogyny (link).
L.J.'s Obsessions 