Esoterica's avatar

Esoterica

karnythia

Esoterica: I have so many conversations with “good” black men who were out & out...

freakygeekyblerd:

karnythia:

I have so many conversations with “good” black men who were out & out dogs until they found religion or whatever. Like years of just being wild as fuck, running through women like they were changing their socks wild, who will tell you in a minute that they’ll only wife a girl who is A) a virgin or…

A cousin had the worst wedding night ever because she was a virgin and wasn’t prepared for how logistically challenging a first time of PIV sex can be.  Just save yourself the way “Jesus” wants you to and all will be well.  All the pomp and circumstance just made the fall into reality a longer distance.  Needless to say, we were never told anything about pleasing ourselves or our partner.  I suppose “Jesus” was supposed to take care of that too.

Thankfully I’ve always known I couldn’t deal with a man whose gender politics were as hypocritical as the ones described above.  I’ve never had the spoons/energy for cognitive dissonance. That’s a short cut route for getting dropped out of my life.

Going forward I HAVE to have a partner that is comfortable with having frank discussions about sex, pleasure and what they want to give/receive.  It seems people want relationships, but don’t actually want to RELATE to their partners at all.  So what’s the point if you’re just full of shit and lie to yourself and others?  Stuff like this is why I’m happy to remain single.  It’s much easier.  When I think of all the people that I know who are paired up there are only a handful of them who have something I would want.

Yeah, I wound up having the “This is what should happen” convo with a religious friend of mine who’s brand new husband had never been with a virgin & thus their first time was awful. Mind you, he wasn’t a virgin but he didn’t have a clue about extended foreplay or well…much of anything beyond what it took to make him get off.

drvy
drvy:


“Me love you long time” came into prominence with Stanley Kubrick’s “Full Metal Jacket,” (from 1987) as a Vietnamese prostitute tries to pick up Matthew Modine’s character with broken English. The phrase was then popularly picked up by 2 Live Crew in the song “Me So Horny.” “It’s so many different kinds of slurs in one,” comedian Margaret Cho said. “It’s instantly putting you in the position of being a foreigner, an outsider and a sexual stereotype. It’s an all-in-one combo.”
~naturallaw for yahoo questions

The popularization by Mariah Carey’s ‘Love You Long Time,’ Fergie’s ‘London Bridge,’ and Nicki Minaj’s ““Muahhhh me love you long time like I’m asian” demonstrates how this exotification of Asian/A.American women is constantly recycled in the media, perpetuated by celebrities to obtain the hyper-sexualized image needed to make it big, especially if you ain’t got the talent.
I would get started on Nicki’s whole hyper-sexualized, Japanese dolled up shit, but racialious says it best. Well researched: here http://www.racialicious.com/2010/11/01/the-orientalism-of-nicki-minaj/
You can degrade yourself, but no, my sisters and I will NOT love you long time. 

drvy:

Me love you long time” came into prominence with Stanley Kubrick’s “Full Metal Jacket,” (from 1987) as a Vietnamese prostitute tries to pick up Matthew Modine’s character with broken English. The phrase was then popularly picked up by 2 Live Crew in the song “Me So Horny.”

“It’s so many different kinds of slurs in one,” comedian Margaret Cho said. “It’s instantly putting you in the position of being a foreigner, an outsider and a sexual stereotype. It’s an all-in-one combo.”

~naturallaw for yahoo questions

The popularization by Mariah Carey’s ‘Love You Long Time,’ Fergie’s ‘London Bridge,’ and Nicki Minaj’s ““Muahhhh me love you long time like I’m asian” demonstrates how this exotification of Asian/A.American women is constantly recycled in the media, perpetuated by celebrities to obtain the hyper-sexualized image needed to make it big, especially if you ain’t got the talent.

I would get started on Nicki’s whole hyper-sexualized, Japanese dolled up shit, but racialious says it best. Well researched: here http://www.racialicious.com/2010/11/01/the-orientalism-of-nicki-minaj/

You can degrade yourself, but no, my sisters and I will NOT love you long time. 

(via babyslime)

vagabondaesthetics

When do boys meet girls?

ethiopienne:

vagabondaesthetics:

I was talking to one my homies and she was talking about how she no longer finds Dave Chappelle funny because she believes misogyny permeates through far too many of the sketches that involve women. I can’t really offer any sort of rebuttal to that because I haven’t watched the series in years and the only ones that come to mind pretty much exclude women except for the one when he is in the car dancing to some music and the woman with him titty pops out.

Then she started listening the stereotypes women get like they’re difficult, angry, nuts, and so on and so forth. Essentially, men don’t understand women as people. So, I sat on that for a couple a seconds. What I came up with is that it is to be expected. Men’s lives don’t intersect with women until a nigga wants to fuck. And I say nigga because and not because I’m black or to be crass, but put out the crassness of the conversation and the desired relationship with women. As young boys we are never encouraged, and often shunned if we do, to delve into the world that has been constructed as girl/women. You are not supposed to watch shows for girls, listen to music for girls, play with girls’ toys, read books for girls and pretty much anything that is marketed/divisible into boy and girl. None of the material we’re given as boys really even includes girls except in the tomboy role.

And the tomboy role is an interesting function. That is when girls are allowed, there are still hurdles and restricts considering she is still a girl, to interact with boys among boy society. There is always some pushback among the boy fraternity, but she will have interaction with boys on boy level. Far more than the inverse at least. While there are mountains of positive things to be said about girls being tomboys, from a male perspective this is problematic to me on some level because the interaction is only taking place in his territory (for the majority of the time at least).

Now for girls it is interesting to me because straight (OUT OF THE DUNGEONS OF RAP) of the womb they are pretty much forced to interact with the boy world in every facet of their life. Firstly, all things that they consume will pretty much be in lesser quantity than the boys. And even within the little that they get exclusively targeted to them there will pretty much always be substantial male influence/characters permeating throughout the entirety to it. Shit, there are times with stories that take place in an entire female border school/university and with just a single male character he dominates the narrative. So, with parse amount they do receive they still get healthy (err…) doses of boyhood. In addition to that they’re encouraged to play with boys and consume our media alongside us. Women’s lives are intertwined with both masculinity and femininity since they are toddlers. It would seem contradictory to say that men’s lives aren’t, but we have to keep in mind that men only meet women in childhood and adolescence on their ground. No budges.

Now we get to a nigga wants to fuck stage. Fucking clueless as all hell. This may feel like a tangent, but I believe it bares mentioning. Lets sit back and think how many men actually know what a period is. Right? Right? This is one of the most basic things that can happen to women, but it is not understand by men beyond bad stand-up, terrible stereotypes on TV, and signifying that now that particular woman is able to get pregnant. I think that is one of our greatest examples of our profound ignorance of women. A simple biological necessity in order to make sure that the planet continues to have your species is barely understood beyond the most tenuous grasps of the basics. Where was I again? Okay yes, a nigga wants to fuck and we’re clueless. We’ve had zero training or preparation for this. Shit we haven’t even learned that you’re fellow fucking human beings yet! Jesus, we’re fucked. Sort of. Well not sort of, it’s a no. Women kind of just accept our ignorance because of one of our favorite phrases “boys will be boys.”

I know a positive example of a woman that are usually in boys lives in the mother. I would say it’s a good point. I would, but I won’t. Why? Well because mothers are not women to their sons. Mothers to sons barely exist on the same plain as human beings. They are God damn heavenly perfect figures. Which is why men who love their mothers (live, breathe, and die for them) can still give zero fucks about the treatment of other women in the world including how he treats women. I believe that regardless of how much a girl may love her daddy, there will almost certainly be a certain point and time in relationship when she starts seeing his as both a man and father (or even just a men who happens to be her father).

I feel like now I should answer my question prompted in the title. I honestly can’t say when because I think a significant percentage (I am neither optimistic or pessimistic right now so I would say majority or major minority) simply do not. That’s not to say these men secretly hate the women they are married to, have kids with, and stay married with their entire lives. Nope. Still love. That’s all possible. That doesn’t necessarily mean that he recognizes their humanity. It doesn’t mean he has any grasp on the totality of women as people. It’s just, I don’t know. Feels like an extremely basic thing you know?

Then again I’m still working on myself with deconstruction within my mind and my views on women aren’t always awash in completely picture perfect views of women as people. Doesn’t matter whether I fucking loved the Powerpuff Girls growing up or that I had more female friends than male friends in schooling or that most of the characters I emphasize with in film are women or that I love or 15 million other things, they are still there regardless. It’s a long process that shouldn’t be a long process. I’m still ashamed of myself for it.

Bolded for emphasis.

(via ethiopienne)

40h4error

Missing the Point

lucypaw:

entropyforever:

So this is my profile picture on OkCupid. It’s a t-shirt I had custom made, with lyrics from the parody “Not a Virgin”

I get this message today:

Yeah thanks for mansplaining that for us douchenozzle. www.doesnotgetit.com

Yet another reason why I have no faith in most men, especially on OkCupid.

waits to be called a man-hater

(via daisy-bellis)

joyeuse-noelle

Joyeux Noëlle: Correct me if I’m wrong here. (HT: @SaynaTheSpiffy.)A person - let’s...

joyeux-noelle:

Correct me if I’m wrong here. (HT: @SaynaTheSpiffy.)

A person - let’s call them “X” - is in charge of a young woman. X does not allow the young woman to date or have sex; her “purity” virginity must be preserved. In fact, X strictly limits the amount to which the young woman can interact with men of any age. When the young woman is old enough, and when X has found a partner for the young woman who is sufficiently advantageous to X, the young woman is, with or without her consent, bound into marriage with the partner X has chosen.

Now, here’s the dilemma:

If X is a family member, the paragraph above describes “time-honored traditional marriage practices”.

If X is not a family member, the paragraph above describes sex trafficking.

I can’t be the only one who sees a problem here.

(via moniquill)

counterftnoire
counterftnoire:

Another for the queue.

Winner of the 2010 Lawrence W. Levine Award, presented by the Organization of American Historians.

Winner of the 2009 Society for Historians of the Early American Republic Book Award, given by the Society for Historians of the Early American Republic

Gold medal winner for the ForeWorld Magazine 2009 Book of the Year Award in History


“A nation’s standards of private cleanliness reveal much about its ideals of civilization, fears of disease, and expectations for public life, says Kathleen Brown in this unusual cultural history. Starting with the shake-up of European practices that coincided with Atlantic expansion, she traces attitudes toward “dirt” through the mid-nineteenth century, demonstrating that cleanliness—and the lack of it—had moral, religious, and often sexual implications. Brown contends that care of the body is not simply a private matter but an expression of cultural ideals that reflect the fundamental values of a society.

The book explores early America’s evolving perceptions of cleanliness, along the way analyzing the connections between changing public expectations for appearance and manners, and the backstage work of grooming, laundering, and housecleaning performed by women. Brown provides an intimate view of cleanliness practices and how such forces as urbanization, immigration, market conditions, and concerns about social mobility influenced them. Broad in historical scope and imaginative in its insights, this book expands the topic of cleanliness to encompass much larger issues, including religion, health, gender, class, and race relations.

Kathleen M. Brown is professor of history, University of Pennsylvania, and author of Good Wives, Nasty Wenches, and Anxious Patriarchs: Gender, Race, and Power in Colonial Virginia. She lives in Merion Station, PA.”

Yale University Press

counterftnoire:

Another for the queue.

Winner of the 2010 Lawrence W. Levine Award, presented by the Organization of American Historians.

Winner of the 2009 Society for Historians of the Early American Republic Book Award, given by the Society for Historians of the Early American Republic

Gold medal winner for the ForeWorld Magazine 2009 Book of the Year Award in History


“A nation’s standards of private cleanliness reveal much about its ideals of civilization, fears of disease, and expectations for public life, says Kathleen Brown in this unusual cultural history. Starting with the shake-up of European practices that coincided with Atlantic expansion, she traces attitudes toward “dirt” through the mid-nineteenth century, demonstrating that cleanliness—and the lack of it—had moral, religious, and often sexual implications. Brown contends that care of the body is not simply a private matter but an expression of cultural ideals that reflect the fundamental values of a society.

The book explores early America’s evolving perceptions of cleanliness, along the way analyzing the connections between changing public expectations for appearance and manners, and the backstage work of grooming, laundering, and housecleaning performed by women. Brown provides an intimate view of cleanliness practices and how such forces as urbanization, immigration, market conditions, and concerns about social mobility influenced them. Broad in historical scope and imaginative in its insights, this book expands the topic of cleanliness to encompass much larger issues, including religion, health, gender, class, and race relations.

Kathleen M. Brown is professor of history, University of Pennsylvania, and author of Good Wives, Nasty Wenches, and Anxious Patriarchs: Gender, Race, and Power in Colonial Virginia. She lives in Merion Station, PA.”

Yale University Press

euphoricpessimist
kyssthis16:

illsunny:

sunnydaledropout:

ifancyeuphoria:

Things I fancyOh, Iwan Rheon

im sorry this just needed to be on my dashboard……he is so…. *excuses self and takes Arctic Shower*

 

Pasty Welsh Dude with pointy ears and a killer jawline……yup, pretty much. 

Thigh kisses = He could get it.

kyssthis16:

illsunny:

sunnydaledropout:

ifancyeuphoria:

Things I fancy
Oh, Iwan Rheon

im sorry this just needed to be on my dashboard……he is so…. *excuses self and takes Arctic Shower*

 

Pasty Welsh Dude with pointy ears and a killer jawline……yup, pretty much. 

Thigh kisses = He could get it.

kdebeaufort
artemisamadhareigh
peecharrific:

geekscoutcookies:

ariaonthefloor:

illletyourbadpartsin:

GPOY

*slow clap*



i. am. here. for. that. cot. damb. gif.
LMAOOOOOOOOOOOO

peecharrific:

geekscoutcookies:

ariaonthefloor:

illletyourbadpartsin:

GPOY

*slow clap*

i. am. here. for. that. cot. damb. gif.

LMAOOOOOOOOOOOO

(via peechingtonmariejust)

lysscglobal

WikiLeaks: UN Peacekeepers Traded Food For Sex

soydulcedeleche:

stay-human:

A random poll of 10 underage girls in Toulepleu by aid group Save The Children U.K. in 2009 found that eight performed sexual acts for Benin peacekeepers on a regular basis in order to secure their most basic needs. “Eight of the 10 said they had ongoing sexual relationships with Beninese soldiers in exchange for food or lodging,” the diplomat wrote in the cable, citing information shared with the embassy by a protection officer.

Read Whole

they do this EVERYWHERE they go. the UN is the fucking devil.

(via strugglingtobeheard)