Tumgik
#grooming
guineapiggies · 3 days
Text
Via skinny_and_guinea_pigs
102 notes · View notes
whatcha-thinkin · 2 days
Text
67 notes · View notes
womenaremypriority · 11 hours
Text
just so fascinating when conservatives say “forcing a little boy to wear a dress” is pedophilia- which is what they think happened whenever they see a boy wearing a dress, no matter the actual situation.
Of course, you shouldn’t force a child to wear anything, but it makes you think what they consider forcing a little girl to wear a dress- which they’re willing to do. If no boy child ever willingly wears a dress, and so forcing one to, is sexual, why is it not sexual to do the same to a girl child? Is it that girl children are meant to wear dresses, and so isn’t perverse? Is it because girl children are sexual to them?
24 notes · View notes
pinnapop · 1 day
Text
death of an author, reclamation, and you
"We never are what we intend, or invent 'Cause I make little lies and then I pull them apart Think something dark's living down in my heart And if I wanted to die before I got old I should've started some years ago digging that hole"
Brand New. "At the Bottom." Daisy, 2009.
Brand New was among one of my favorite bands in high school, and I still listen to them today. Their music is important to me and shaped a big part of who I am. Their lyrics about being tortured, burnt-out, and choking on the weight of your own self-perceived flaws are relatable! Their compositions ooze with a level of self-hatred that can only be genuine. It's utterly depressing, and I adore it!
That's not not the full story, though. Jesse Lacey, the vocalist of Brand New, is a sexual predator. This informs everything about how the music of Brand New is. It's self-loathing for a very good reason. I love Brand New. I condemn Jesse Lacey. These two statements coexist. I used to be a part of the /r/brandnew subreddit, and when the allegations against Jesse Lacey came out in 2017, many redditors of that sub were quick to claim "death of the author." After all, the band had broken up immediately after the news broke, and they had also cancelled their tours. Currently, the people using that subreddit mostly talk about buying old BN merchandise and discuss what their favorite concert memories were. Jesse Lacey himself confirmed that the allegations against him were true, so there isn't much debate to be had. The subreddit serves as a monument for fans who still enjoy the music, and as a platform to speak about it with like-minded fans.
In my opinion, claiming "death of an author" is a slippery slope. We can't always claim that Miku is the creator of Minecraft. But often, we see that that is the response people have when a creator is outed to be problematic; "I still like the thing So-and-So made, so I will ignore that the creator exists!" The reason that this worked for Miku Minecraft is because, by the time that Notch was publicly making transphobic comments, he did not own Minecraft anymore. The joke is quite literally that he does not own the thing that people like. He sold it to Microsoft, so he doesn't get royalties from it anymore. You can play Minecraft devoid of supporting its original creator. This joke works so well because it is an actual case of the death of an author! That's great and all for Minecraft, but what about other instances? What happens when we claim "death of the creator" erroneously? And why are we so obsessed with this concept anyway?
So like, back to Brand New... they released their last album, Science Fiction, back in August 2017. The allegations came out later that same year. I own all of Brand New's discography physically, including their last release. I bought most of it off eBay when I was 15. I was not supporting them post-allegations. But that leaves me with a lingering question- what do I do with all these CDs that I still very much enjoy the music of? From how I see it, there are two firm camps on this topic:
Camp 1: You know about Lacey's crimes now and his music cannot be separated from his actions. Solution: Throw your CDs away.
Camp 2: It's something you bought without knowledge of Lacey's crimes, so you should enjoy it anyway. Death of an author! Solution: Continue as usual.
I'm not fond of either of these answers. They come off as too polarized for a situation that is the entire Pantone swatch library of grays. "But, how are there any shades of gray when its clear that Jesse Lacey is in the wrong?" I want to provide some counter questions for you to think about:
What about the other people in the band? You might not be directly supporting the sexual predator anymore, but there are other victims here too- effectively his band mates lost their jobs overnight. (Another example would be LOSTPROPHETS)
Is it feasible to destroy each object you own because it was created under problematic circumstances? When or when isn't this the case? Does it apply to your cup of coffee? Does it apply to the clothes you wear? What about any product with palm oil in it? What about the hardware in your computer? If you look into any company, you're going to find some horrific things you don't like about it. The takeaway here is that it isn't beneficial to treat situations like these as black or white. I don't think that destroying my CDs is going to do anything to take away the abuse that Jesse Lacey caused. Nor do I think ignoring the context of his music will do anyone any favors. The music he made is a product of his crimes. To ignore that fact would be disingenuous to why people enjoy his music and why the music exists in the first place. There's another element here, though. I, and many others, are no longer monetarily supporting Jesse Lacey. You can't even officially support the release of Brand New's music anymore as their record label (Procrastinate! Music Traitors) doesn't even seem to have a functioning website anymore? Regardless, I wouldn't want to support his music in a way that supports him, anyway. Yes, I enjoy the music and the themes of it, but I do not want to be directly supporting abuse that happened BECAUSE he was a vocalist in a band. And I can safely do this with CDs that I bought secondhand, right? This is death of the author. So what's the issue?
I believe there is an issue when people claim “death of the author” far too quickly and scramble to reclaim the media for themselves. It’s an increasingly popular trend these days to pluck characters/concepts from an author deemed to be problematic. "I'll save [Character I like] from this shitty piece of media!", they claim. I don't think people realize how multifaceted in effect that is, though. For instance, if the author is actively making money from their creation, you can't truly "reclaim" a character from them. It's more like you're paying homage to them with fanart.
My best on-going example of this would be Floraverse. There are a multitude of reasons why people do not like the author/s of Floraverse, which I will not go into here. To put it simply, though, since its inception in 2013, many artists and writers involved with Flora either left or were kicked out. These artists either directly contributed to the art and worldbuilding of the webcomic, or were heavily influenced by it. To this day, there are many times someone links me to art on Discord and I’ll say “oh I remember that person, they used to be a Flora fanartist!” and the other person is absolutely floored that that artist was ever linked to Floraverse. Anyway… There have been multiple attempts at people trying to reclaim Floraverse from the author, and this never works out. Like, it really doesn’t work out. Any time that someone tries to reclaim Floraverse characters for themselves whilst condemning the author, that person is dogpiled by the Floraverse community. Which is a weird behavior for a CC BY-SA webcomic, but I digress. Here are some highlights:
In 2019, there was a thread dedicated to Redesigning Floraverse that immediately got taken over by Floraverse itself a month later.
An artist got harassed for multiple years (I think it was 2020-2023) for having an oc based on Beleth, a character in Floraverse.
Just 2 months ago, an artist got harassed for drawing fanart of the characters
Historically, reclaiming Floraverse characters from the author hasn't worked out. And I mean.. why would it? It's an actively running "webcomic" (I'll be charitable) and with an active community that supports the author's current works and views with their wallets. It's one thing to enjoy a piece of media with a problematic author and want to reclaim that media for yourself. It is another for this reclamation to actually be effective. Attempts of "reclaiming" Floraverse get written off as fanworks that the community dislikes. You cannot reclaim Floraverse characters as they do not exist in a vacuum. Listening to secondhand Brand New CDs does work in a vacuum; Jesse Lacey's career is dead in the water. The same cannot be said for reclaiming the art of Glitchedpuppet and co. Floraverse characters and stories are not divorced from the abuses they cause. Characters will be used as strawmen to abuse community members, past or present. Or entire works will be up dedicated to making light of your childhood trauma! These characters were made by an abuser, and will be used to abuse. That is a simple fact about Floraverse. Except... in that statement, I'm not even talking about Glitchedpuppet, the current author of Floraverse. I'm talking about Marlcabinet, the previous author of Floraverse. This statement does however, apply to both of them. Hey, wait a minute, that's weird! I've been talking about "death of the author" for this entire post, and I just said that reclaiming Floraverse characters can't work because the way the characters were used to abuse real people doesn't exist in a vacuum. So like, why does this work within the Floraverse webcomic itself? Marl is the abuser of Glip, but Marl is also the author of the majority of early Floraverse. Isn't the story itself, as it currently stands, an act of reclaiming characters used to abuse community members, minors, and any detractors? Then who is to say that those who contributed to Floraverse and were similarly abused are not also allowed this same privilege? Their real-world suffering is what fuels the comic. When I was 13-16, I adored a Floraverse character named Cayenne. His whole deal was that he was an autistic child slave and was horribly abused by everyone around him. Weird character to connect to, but he’s the character that made me figure out I had autism! I drew a LOT of fanart of this character and I even own a (gifted) life-size plush of him. The authors only ever treated him as a joke and it was a joke even within the Floraverse community that I was the only person who actually liked/cared about him. Sometimes I think about reclaiming him for myself. But I also don’t want to get harassed, and I know I could design much better things, and write better things. Conversely, I also think about how this is the exact character that made me get into contact with Marl when I was 16. It’s a heavy weight to carry knowing that this exact character was the reason I was almost in the clutches of a child predator. Glip personally deferred me to him. Reclaiming Cayenne would hold emotional value for me as a reminder of my triumph over a predator. Would it be wrong for me to reclaim an abused child character from a comic that abused me and many others as children? I've no clue. And I don't think anyone can answer that. I've waffled on it for ~2 years now. Reclaiming Cayenne would give attention to an individual that profits off abusing others, myself included. I'd say that reclaiming Floraverse characters wouldn't be a case of "death of the author", but the original creator of them was a child predator that's no longer on the internet. Floraverse is already practicing death of an author, and it is a shell of its former self. That being said, it is not a story that only has one author. Its other authors are still active, and these authors include every person that it has abused in its wake. After all, it's a comic that relies on you to know about its dramas with and traumas of real people. Tell me: Does a death of the author matter when its being written about you?
25 notes · View notes
sweaty-confetti · 16 days
Text
if i have to see someone use the word “grooming” one more time in an incorrect way i’m going to start throwing things. like YES this person had an inappropriate relationship with this other person. YES this person was abusive and manipulative. YES this person seemed creepily obsessed with this other person. etc etc etc. but that doesn’t automatically equal grooming !!! abuse isn’t necessarily grooming, stalking isn’t necessarily grooming, even pedophilia isn’t necessary grooming ! grooming refers to a SPECIFIC PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR that predatory adults will use on children before actually abusing them in order to normalize and suppress the abuse beforehand! it’s specifically nonviolent and is used to make the predator harder to get caught, to get the victim to trust and fear them, and to normalize said inappropriate behavior before it actually happens. i cannot fucking stand what the internet has done to this term. if you’re talking about domestic abuse, use the word domestic abuse. if you’re talking about rape, use the word rape. if you’re talking about stalking, use the word stalking. if you’re talking about straight up pedophilia, use that word. this is one of those words i’m putting on the shelf until the internet knows how to use it properly
3K notes · View notes
longing-for-rain · 9 months
Text
You know what I think a lot of people don’t realize about grooming is that, the person will almost always start pushing your boundaries in little, non-sexual ways.
For example, one big thing a person who groomed me did was joke about killing and eating my dog. She knew I love my dogs like they’re my children, and I’d told her those “jokes” made me uncomfortable. But she kept doing it. The same joke over and over again; it wasn’t even funny (“I believe all god’s creatures have a place…next to the potatoes”). At first I pushed back, but then it got to a point where I got tired of resisting and treated like I was stiff and couldn’t take a joke. So I relented on that boundary.
That alone might seem insignificant and dumb, but with groomers, as soon as they break down one boundary they’ll immediately start trying to break down another. And each little one they break, the more they get you used to letting them violate you to the point where you’re afraid to speak up against the bigger things.
So especially if you’re a younger person on the internet, never ignore when someone is making you uncomfortable especially if they’re much older. Even if it seems like a silly, insignificant thing. They know what they’re doing, and it’s important to stay safe.
5K notes · View notes
manscaped · 2 years
Text
The collab no one asked for
Tumblr media
38K notes · View notes
one-time-i-dreamt · 9 months
Photo
Tumblr media
Someone uploaded the Colleen Ballinger on Album of the Year so people could rate it 0 out of a 100, making it the worst single of the year.
1K notes · View notes
butch-reidentified · 4 months
Text
it's so cute how everyone acknowledges grooming as a real thing but as soon as we say (such as in conversations about female body hair removal) girls/women are groomed our entire lives to appeal to men, we're "misogynistic" for "calling women stupid"
Edit Jan 7, 2024:
My wife thinks I should have included an analogy in the original post (like the CEO example in my recent reblog), but in my conversation with her she pointed out that under the broad definition of grooming, all raising of children could be considered "grooming them for adult life." She makes a good point!!
The actual definition isn't inherently about sexual predation despite what the internet may have led some of you to assume. This is a good opportunity for me to remind *everyone* to fact check *everything* you learn online before repeating it to anyone and possibly spreading misinformation - including definitions of words you learn online! We ALL do this sometimes!
Screenshot below of #2 and #3 under the definition of "grooming" (#1 is obviously about animal fur lol):
Tumblr media
I do find it interesting that the broader definition (#2) inherently includes what is detailed in #3, yet #3 was explicitly added (I assume at a later date than #2, given the context and numerical order). It's redundant, and I do have some criticisms of the way it's worded/the specifics of it. I wonder how other dictionaries define it.
778 notes · View notes
she-is-ovarit · 5 months
Text
The man several years older than you who calls you "more mature than your own age" is grooming you. The man who says you are "special" or "unique" is grooming you. The man who calls you an "old soul" is grooming you.
These are grooming phrases.
The man several years older than you who keeps circling back to "Gosh, I can't believe you're real! But are you sure you want this? I'm so much older than you!" when you're cuddling or making out is grooming you. He is asking you that question during intimate moments as a way to unconsciously manipulate you into denial and perhaps get you to reassure whatever guilt he has, if he has any. Asking this while showering you with affection is an attempt to bait and coerce you into saying yes. Whether done unconsciously or consciously, he is fulfilling an emotional need you have for love or protection while at the same time getting you to say out loud to yourself and to him that you want this in order to work your brain into ignoring any bad gut feeling or doubt you have, then or in the future.
That is grooming behavior.
I understand that you might not want this to be true, and that you feel pulled to him. I understand it might feel more parental or brotherly than it does sexual or romantic. But this is how grooming works in many, many cases. The attachment or relationship fulfills a psychological need or wound you had from a parent or a sibling. His behaviors might very well be fatherly or brotherly, and then over time those little interactions blur into something else that you can't quite make sense of but that you like.
That magnetic, psychological pull you feel is not a sign of healthy attachment or a healthy relationship. You can be groomed as a child, you can be groomed as a teen, you can be groomed as a 20 year old.
And, yes, this goes for lesbians, bisexuals, gay men too. I speak with heterosexual situations in mind because there is a depressing, astounding pattern of heterosexual men grooming women and girls younger than them. But I have encountered plenty of gay men and lesbians in horrible codependent relationships that they feel simultaneously both trapped in and glued to.
698 notes · View notes
Text
Tumblr media Tumblr media
Yes, they really did this.
380 notes · View notes
snikerdoodledoo · 1 month
Text
Please enjoy this adorableness of my boy cleaning his tail 💕
(ignore the audio)
357 notes · View notes