[video]
(Source: fabich, via theoldinout94)
“I hate how the phrase ‘have some self respect’ is used to shame women who are comfortable with their sex lives. ‘Have some self respect’? I do respect myself, that’s why I wanna have a fucking orgasm tonight, thank you very much.” — Unknown (via desperateconversations)
(via born-an-0riginal-gangsterr)
Just an angry bi guy: A brief history of the term "monosexuality" -
(I’ve been asked this elsewhere and thought others might find it helpful.)
The modern use of the word “monosexual” was invented along with “bisexual” by European scientists in the late 19th century and early 20th century. Back then, “bisexual” meant having a combination of male and female anatomical features, or a lack of sexual differentiation between male and female anatomy. “Monosexual” meant clear differentiation between male and female anatomical traits. Later, when bisexuality came to mean “having masculine and feminine psychological traits” (which is how Freud used it), “monosexuality” meant having the psychological traits of one “sex”. Under that framework, bisexuality also came to be understood as a form of attraction: it was presumed that people who had the anatomical sexual traits of “both sexes” also had “male and female” psychological traits, which meant that they also were attracted to “both sexes”. It was assumed that their “male side” desired females, while their “female side” desired males. Under this definition, “monosexual” meant someone with clear anatomical and psychological “male” or “female” traits, who is attracted to one “sex”. Note that they didn’t at all differentiate between sex, gender and sexuality. These were all considered as one and the same.They also used gender-binary language.
This term also had a particular value judgement: while bisexuality was firmly connected with immaturity, “primitiveness”, non-white/West-European (i.e. “savage”) cultures and with animals, monosexuality was strongly associated with maturity, advancement, “cultured” (i.e. West-European) humanity and whiteness. In this framework, monosexuality was clearly and explicitly superior.
Quite a bit later, in the 1990’s, the bisexual movements in the US and the UK used the word in a similar, but different context. Obviously, the meaning of bisexuality has changed considerably (it meant pretty much the same thing as it does now - referring only to desire rather than “anatomical sex” or “psychological gender”). Bi activists and writers used it to mean people attracted to no more than one gender, as part of a political dialogue about oppression. This is where I took it from and is pretty much how I use it. I will say that even then, the term was met with inner-community criticism, basically on the same grounds as now - that it created an unfair conflation between gay and straight people, and that it created a harmful binary dichotomy (bisexual/monosexual).
While I think that these criticisms have really good points, I also think we can take them into account, and use the term carefully, sensitively and contextually, without necessarily making those same mistakes. I think it’s one hell of a useful term for talking about structural oppression of bi people, so I guess you could say I use it tactically in order to raise those issues.
Black model’s who aren’t Naomi Campbell: Stephanie Roberts
(via sylvides)
[video]
Having his balls bound in this fashion gives this wife much better control of the penis they dangle beneath. Her cuckold most likely already feels a bit of a dull ache from them, making it quite simple for her to increase pressure on them and immediately stave off any impending orgasm.
She can keep him in this state until she either allows him to spurt, or until the ache in his testicles overcomes the pleasure from her hand and his penis becomes temporarily disabled.
i bet option 2 is the one she goes with and he isnt allowed to cum.
(Source: gavanalan)
(via obscure3rdworldcountry)
“
Bangladesh has recently been in the news for all the wrong reasons. The collapse of the by now infamous Rana Plaza has focused the spotlight on the dangerous working conditions in the garment sweatshops there. The country is, of course, the sordid underbelly of globalization. But the garment industry has also lifted millions in the country, especially women, out of poverty. In the inimitable words of Joan Robinson, “The misery of being exploited by capitalists is nothing compared to the misery of not being exploited at all.”
According to the latest United Nations (UN) Human Development Report, Bangladesh comfortably beats India on most such social indicators. It has lower infant and child mortality, higher life expectancy, and does better on gender equality. It has forged ahead of India on these social indicators despite the government spending little on health or education. Bangladesh’s public spending on health, as a proportion of GDP, is the same as India’s, while public spending on education is much lower. Unlike India, welfare programmes haven’t derailed government finances—Bangladesh’s fiscal deficit is much lower than India’s.
[…]
In short, a combination of higher real wages, higher productivity in farms, the use of NGOs as agencies for social development, and remittances from abroad have all helped provide a measure of inclusive growth in Bangladesh.
In India, however, growth has been far less inclusive. The paper by Agarwal and Whalley points out that the elasticity of reduction in poverty, malnourishment, infant mortality, child mortality and maternal mortality with respect to growth of per-capita GDP is much less in India than for other countries and regions and even lower than sub-Saharan Africa (see chart). That means the impact on poverty and other social indicators of a percentage point growth in per-capita GDP is lower in India than for most other regions.
India’s GDP growth in 2012, according to the IMF, was lower than Bangladesh’s and is forecast to be lower in 2013 and 2014 as well. The IMF seems to believe that Indian rates of growth will be near that of Bangladesh in the near future. That will hurt our already-poor social welfare measures. It may be time we learnt something from Bangladesh.
” —Manas Chakravarty writing at Livemint.com, ‘Lessons for India from Bangladesh’.
Let me begin with this salient fact: ECONOMIST DUDES THIS IS WHY NO ONE TRUSTS YOU.
If I were still interested in psychology, I’d want to know why are you so divorced from your own humanity, or how can you see people—you know, the living-breathing kind?—as a set of indices and indicators. However, psych-minor days are long gone, plus we already know what is your psychological make-up: The Economist (Alternatively known as: The Devil’s Most Fervent Advocate In All Life Situations Ever).
Let’s forget about Shahbag right now—and the fact that women are at the forefront of that movement, asking for very complicated questions and what they believe is the resolution of the ‘71 crimes on humanity—we also bear witness to many worker’s protests, precisely after the catastrophe at Rana Plaza. And strangely enough, they’re not talking about how they are “better off” being exploited by capitalism, instead of going hungry. They’re actually pushing back against ideas and jobs created around Global North-South labour dictatorship, asking for better and humane work environments, while firmly arguing for respecting their human rights. Those lowly ingrates, they seem to have forgotten how lucky they are, no?
I saw you mentioned Bangladesh’s reliance on microcredit and using NGO’s as agencies to secure and safeguard democratic rights, did you know there are people who’ve made their careers pointing out the loopholes in such rights-as-commodities approach? Long before flouting neoliberalism-while-philosophising-over-chai became a trend? Did you know Bangladesh could secure a spot in the garment industry chain by its rather risque MultiFiber Agreement (MFA), that guaranteed Bangladesh remained a monopoly in assembling raw materials and garments, “cut pieces” in the Ready-Made Garment (RMG) industry, but having very little control over the finished product? Or producing goods that had markedly low production value? Not to say, no one benefited from the MFA, or that all women who were the backbone of this industry were ‘rational fools’—to borrow a term from your trade—or too poor to think through what their choices meant, but how most of these studies underscore the need for a more heavy-handed execution of human rights, especially in the arenas of labour and and dignity of the workers, in and out of Special Economic Zones (SEZ’s)?
If anything ‘India’ can learn—what a lofty premise and a promise, for to ‘learn’ we must be willing to listen and participate, instead of dictating and rupturing existing structures of governance—it is to rethink what we mean by collective organising, and how can we foster such spaces of dissent, instead of squashing them with neoliberal and sectarian hogwash of “progress”.
Oh and also, thank you Mr. Dude for the selective amnesia that informs your piece, for a little bit there I’d started assuming such manipulation of facts, history and context was a hobby of the communalist lobbies, I’d forgotten it is one of the many occupational hazards of being an economist.
TL;DR: Fuck you.
No love ever,
B.
(via woh-battameez)
(Source: darkroom2, via ucanusemybutthole)
Urvashi Butalia | Childless, naturally -
I think back to my friends who talk about being able to love unconditionally. I think, well, this is not something I am unfamiliar with—why do people assume such feelings then are only meant for children? My friends have children, talk of sleepless nights, of irresponsible husbands, unhelpful siblings, of school admissions, of careers given up, of grades and universities: I hear this all the time. And I hear the throwaway remark: ‘Well, how would you know? You’ve never been a mother.’
(by dyealesmana)
(via knowledgeequalsblackpower)
Giving White People The Illusion Of Darker Skin Makes Them Less Racist
An optical illusion can change the implicit biases of Caucasian people against people with darker skin, according to a study published in the August 2013 edition of Cognition.
The research, a collaboration between Royal Holloway University of London, the Central European University in Budapest and Radboud University Nijmegen in the Netherlands, analyzed the implicit racial biases of 34 Caucasian participants, then subjected them to something called the Rubber Hand Illusion, where they watched a rubber hand being touched by a paintbrush as they felt their own hand being stimulated out of sight. The illusion creates the sense that the fake hand is part of the subject’s body, even when it’s of a completely different skin color.
The more the participants felt like the darker skinned fake hand was their own, the less racist they came off in a second implicit bias test.
In another test, participants underwent the same process, but some saw a white hand, while others saw a dark hand. The implicit bias test showed that the opinions of those who saw the white hand didn’t change, while again those who felt ownership of the darker hand felt less racial bias.
“Across two experiments, the more intense the participants’ illusion of ownership over the dark-skinned rubber hand, the more positive their implicit racial attitudes became,” the authors write.
“It comes down to a perceived similarity between white and dark skin,” lead author Lara Maister of Royal Holloway University of London said in a press statement. “The illusion creates an overlap, which in turn helps to reduce negative attitudes because participants see less difference between themselves and those with dark skin.”
The study suggests that racial biases aren’t necessarily cemented by adulthood, but that they can be altered. “Changes in body-representation may therefore constitute a core, previously unexplored, dimension that in turn changes social cognition processes,” the authors write. They suggest that future research into different social groups and stereotypes could expand on their work, since this research only explored the attitudes of white individuals.
(via kuvitelturuusu)
[video]