#the anti sex culture

[craycraybluejay]

ik people like to act like sex and imbalanced sexual dynamics are uniquely traumatizing (moreso than any other kind of power imbalance, abuse of power, or just flat out abuse period) but from personal experience not really. there's nothing inherent to sex and sexuality that makes it traumatizing. there's nothing inherent to sexual trauma that makes it more traumatic than any other trauma.

and chiefly trauma is never really about the intentions of any party who made or let it happen. someone who wants, intends, and tries to hurt you might bounce off you just like that; because they simply failed to psychologically damage you, because what they did didn't bother you a lot whether it be mental physical or sexual. conversely someone who does not want, intend, or try to hurt you may scar you for life with something either they don't understand is harmful or isn't even inherently harmful and is uniquely that way to you.

i just. i'm annoyed at the narrative of trauma being taken away from the survivor themself. if i say this was traumatizing and you think it's not a big deal, too fucking bad, listen to me. if i say that wasn't traumatizing at all and you think it's the worst thing in the world upon hearing what it is, too fucking bad, you don't get to tell me what my trauma is. i'm sick of seeing people put words in each others mouths and tell someone's story for them without that person's consent. idk like? it makes me so angry that whenever i used to talk about things people would blatantly disregard the most horrific times of my life and instead focus on stuff i was neutral or even positive toward as a big terrible thing that ruined me.

nowadays i'm very grateful to have people who are chill and don't jump to conclusions no one asked them to. people who listen when i tell them "i know this sounds bad but it wasn't actually" or "i know this sounds stupid but this was world shattering." people who i get to laugh with. the RIGHT people who extend me the same kindness of knowing their strange "good bad things" and "bad fine things."

life just isn't as simple as "this is always terrible for people" and "this is always fine for people." PEOPLE aren't a monolith. yes, even that thing that you think must be the worst thing possible. yes, even that thing that you think no one could possibly be hurt by. it's hard to involve myself in serious discussions about abuse because there is a very clear Narrative people want to follow and if you as a "victim" don't follow it then either it didn't happen or you're wrong about your own experience.

hopefully I can consult my therapist about this phenomenon in discussions of abuse and trauma. and also about the specific thing that made me think of this. it irritates me quite a lot when others pity me for something that i knowingly chose-- and in retrospect never hurt me either. like what are you fishing for. why are you looking at me like that. i'm fine, maybe you're the one that needs counseling if my talking about this creates such a visceral reaction in you.

#listen to trauma survivors #listen to victims #listen to people who say they AREN'T that when you say they are too #the only person who knows their life best is that person especially in retrospect #ask to tag #trauma #the narratives surrounding trauma are regressive and ignore anyone who does not fit them #mental health culture critical #mental health #i consume [one] weed and then have sex and its immediately rape. pls touch grass jfc #idk everything surrounding sex is this mystical thing rife with potential evil #and i'm tired of it #the anti sex culture #the whole: there's nothing more traumatizing than someone 2 years older asking you out #pls stop #sex is not inherently more evil or potentially evil than literally any other thing that can be used to abuse #and abuse isn't as simple as 2 neat boxes labeled abusive thing and not abusive thing #for example you cant claim a karen yelling at you in a store is abusive. rude and mean yes but shes not abusing you #but if the same person is yelling at you all the time and has power over you so you cannot stop them thats a diff story potentially #idk people have this #black and white thinking #that never fails to irritate me #and we are never going to get anywhere in understanding these difficult topics if we cannot disconnect the narrative from our ego to always #always be right. to always know what is one thing and what is the other

[uter-us]

incase anyone missed it: pamela anderson went to pfw without makeup!!!

"I'm not trying to be the prettiest girl in the room. I feel like its just freedom. Its like a relief."

i love seeing this. such a win !

#radfem #radical feminist safe #sex based oppression #radical feminism #radblr #anti beauty industry #anti makeup #anti make up #anti beauty standards #anti beauty culture #pamela anderson #paris fashion week #pfw23 #pfw 2023 #not j a reblog tag

[convolutedblasphemy]

If your activism against purity culture involves dunking on people with triggers, labeling optional filters for NSFW content as censorship, deliberately posting triggering shit without warnings or tags to "show them puritans", being hostile to people for politely asking whether you could tag / label something or put it under a readmore, demanding every sex-repulsed person makes it clear to you that they don't hate you for how you live out your sexuality, advocating against SFW spaces for adults or trying to bring NSFW into these spaces, you're not fighting against censorship; you're being ableist, aphobic and just generally a dickhead. Making sure public spaces online and offline are accessible for people with more boundaries than you is not oppression, it's accomodation. Cultivating your online experience also means giving other people the choice to do the same. Sex-repulsed aces and people with sex-related triggers aren't your fucking enemy, so stop antagonizing us. Hope this helps. 👍🏻

#asexual #ace #sex repulsed #asexuality #censorship #anti censorship #purity culture

[orionsangel86]

My friend just linked me to this article in light of my rage at all the stupid bullshit comments to that dumb post that Neil Gaiman answered attacking any Good Omens meta that may suggest AziraCrow may want sex in the future.

This article focuses on Heartstopper and Red, White, and Royal Blue, but its relevant. Purity culture is insidious and a current plague infecting our fandom spaces. Don't let puritanicals use asexuality as a disguise and shield for their shitty views either. This has nothing to do with asexuality and everything to do with an infestation of conservative christian fundamentalist viewpoints within fandom spaces specifically aimed at attacking canon mlm media.

The fact that apparently in Good Omens fandom fans arent even allowed to make their own posts discussing potential themes and subtext within the show that dares to imply AziraCrow could have a sexual relationship without puritanicals going to Neil Gaimans inbox to complain that such discussions are offending their delicate puritanical sensibilities is horrifying to me. Its not an attack on your sexuality if fans claim that an intense ox eating scene is oddly sexually charged in their opinion.

We really must keep up the discussion against purity culture and stamp down on sex shaming within fandom.

Anyway it's an excellent article. Please read it.

#good omens #anti purity culture #anti sex negativity #puriteens #purity culture #fandom discourse

[sad-cinnamongirl]

I'm in my teens and I am often told I need Botox or some kind of plastic surgery to get rid of my fine lines. I used to use drugs. I had an eating disorder. I smoke. I experience stress. I don't look old. I look like a teenager with a face completely appropriate considering my situation.

aging is a gift

#plastic surgery #anti beauty industry #anti beauty culture #anti beauty standards #radblr #radical feminism #radical feminists do interact #radical feminist safe #radical feminists do touch #terfblr #rad fem #anti plastic surgery #anti makeup #beauty culture #radical feminist #female socialization #sex based oppression

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Colin Wright

Published: Oct 2, 2023

On September 25, the American Anthropological Association (AAA) and the Canadian Anthropology Society (CASCA) announced that they were cancelling a panel discussion titled “Let’s Talk About Sex, Baby: Why Biological Sex Remains a Necessary Analytic Category in Anthropology,” originally scheduled as part of their annual conference in Toronto from November 15–19. The cancellation and subsequent response by the two organizations shows the extent to which gender ideology has captured academic anthropology.

The panel would have featured six female scientists, specializing in biology and anthropology, to address their profession’s growing denial of biological sex as a valid and relevant category. While terminological confusion surrounding the distinction between sex and gender roles has been a persistent issue within anthropology for decades, the total refusal of some to recognize sex as a real biological variable is a more recent phenomenon. The panel organizers, eager to facilitate an open discussion among anthropologists and entertain diverse perspectives on a contentious issue, considered the AAA/CASCA conference an optimal venue to host such a conversation.

The organizations accepted the “Let’s Talk About Sex” panel without incident on July 13, and planned to feature it alongside other panels including those on politically oriented subjects, such as “Trans Latinx Methodologies,” “Exploring Activist Anthropology,” and “Reimagining Anthropology as Restorative Justice.” Elizabeth Weiss, a professor of anthropology at San José State University, was one of the slated panelists. She had intended to discuss the significance in bio-archaeology and forensic anthropology of using skeletal remains to establish a decedent’s sex. While a 2018 article in Discover titled “Skeletal Studies Show Sex, Like Gender, Exists Along a Spectrum” reached different conclusions, Weiss planned to discuss how scientific breakthroughs have made determining the sex of skeletal remains a more exact science. Her presentation was to be moderate; she titled it “No Bones About It: Skeletons Are Binary; People May Not Be,” and conceded in her abstract the growing need in forensics to “to ensure that skeletal finds are identified by both biological sex and their gender identity” due to “the current rise in transitioning individuals and their overrepresentation as crime victims.”

Despite having already approved the panel, the presidents of the AAA (Ramona Pérez) and CASCA (Monica Heller) unexpectedly issued a joint letter on September 25 notifying the “Let’s Talk About Sex” presenters that their panel was cancelled. They claimed that the panel’s subject matter conflicted with their organizations’ values, jeopardized “the safety and dignity of our members,” and eroded the program’s “scientific integrity.” They further asserted the panel’s ideas (i.e., that sex is a real and important biological variable) would “cause harm to members represented by the Trans and LGBTQI of the anthropological community as well as the community at large.” To ensure that similar discussions would not be approved in the future, the AAA/CASCA vowed to “undertake a major review of the processes associated with vetting sessions at our annual meetings.”

The following day, the panelists issued a response letter, expressing their disappointment that the AAA and CASCA presidents had “chosen to forbid scholarly dialogue” on the topic. They rejected the “false accusation” that supporting the “continued use of biological sex categories (e.g., male and female; man and woman) is to imperil the safety of the LGBTQI community.” The panelists called “particularly egregious” the AAA/CASCA’s assertion that the panel would compromise the program’s “scientific integrity.” They noted that, ironically, the AAA/CASCA’s “decision to anathematize our panel looks very much like an anti-science response to a politicized lobbying campaign.”

I spoke with Weiss, who expressed her frustration over the canceled panel and the two presidents’ stifling of honest discussion about sex. She was concerned about the continual shifting of goalposts on the issue:

We used to say there’s sex, and gender. Sex is biological, and gender is not. Then it’s no, you can no longer talk about sex. Sex and gender are one, and separating the two makes you a transphobe, when of course it doesn’t. In anthropology and many topics, the goalposts are continuously moved. And, because of that, we need to stand up and say, “I’m not moving from my place unless there’s good scientific evidence that my place is wrong.” And I don’t think there is good scientific evidence that there are more than two sexes.

Weiss was not the only person to object. When I broke news of the cancellation on X, it immediately went viral. At the time of writing, my post has more than 2.4 million views, and the episode has ignited public outcry from individuals and academics across the political spectrum. Science writer Michael Shermer called the AAA and CASCA’s presidents’ letter “shameful” and an “utterly absurd blank slate denial of human nature.” Timur Kuran, a professor of economics and political science at Duke University, described it as “absolutely appalling.” Jeffrey Flier, the Harvard University distinguished service professor and former dean of the Harvard Medical School, viewed it as “a chilling declaration of war on scholarly controversy.” Even Elon Musk expressed his disbelief with a single word: “Wow.”

Despite the backlash, the AAA and CASCA have held firm. On September 28, the AAA posted a statement on its website titled “No Place For Transphobia in Anthropology: Session Pulled from Annual Meeting Program.” The statement reiterated the stance outlined in the initial letter, declaring the “Let’s Talk About Sex” panel an affront to its values and claiming that it endangered AAA members’ safety and lacked scientific rigor.

The AAA’s statement claimed that the now-canceled panel was at odds with their first ethical principle of professional responsibility: “Do no harm.” It likened the scuttled panel’s “gender critical scholarship” to the “race science of the late 19th and early 20th centuries,” the main goal of which was to “advance a ‘scientific’ reason to question the humanity of already marginalized groups of people.” In this instance, the AAA argued, “those who exist outside a strict and narrow sex/gender binary” are being targeted.

Weiss remains unconvinced by this moral posturing. “If the panel was so egregious,” she asked, “why had it been accepted in the first place?”

The AAA also claimed that Weiss’s panel lacked “scientific integrity,” and that she and her fellow panelists “relied on assumptions that ran contrary to the settled science in our discipline.” The panelists, the AAA argued, had committed “one of the cardinal sins of scholarship” by “assum[ing] the truth of the proposition that . . . sex and gender are simplistically binary, and that this is a fact with meaningful implications for the discipline.” In fact, the AAA claimed, the panelists’ views “contradict scientific evidence” about sex and gender, since “[a]round the world and throughout history, there have always been people whose gender roles do not align neatly with their reproductive anatomy.”

There is much to respond to in this portion of AAA’s statement. First, it’s ironic for the organization to accuse scientists of committing the “cardinal sin” of “assuming the truth” of something, and then to justify cancelling those scientists’ panel on the grounds that the panelists refuse to accept purportedly “settled science.” Second, the panel was organized to discuss biological sex (i.e., the biology of males and females), not “gender roles”; pivoting from discussions of basic biology to murkier debates about sex-related social roles and expectations is a common tactic of gender ideologues. Third, the AAA’s argument that a person’s “gender role” might not “align neatly” with his or her reproductive anatomy implies the existence of normative behaviors for members of each sex. Indeed, this is a central tenet of gender ideology that many people dispute and warrants the kind of discussion the panel intended to provide.

The AAA’s statement made another faulty allegation, this time against Weiss for using “sex identification” instead of “sex estimation” when assessing the sex of skeletal remains. The AAA claimed that Weiss’s choice of terminology was problematic and unscholarly because it assumes a “determinative” process that “is easily influenced by cognitive bias on the part of the researcher.”

Weiss, however, rejects the AAA’s notion that the term “sex determination” is outdated or improper. She emphasized that “sex determination” is frequently used in the literature, as demonstrated in numerous contemporary anthropology papers, along with “sex estimation.” Weiss said, “I tend not to use the term ‘sex estimation’ because to estimate is usually associated with a numeric value; thus, I do use the term ‘age estimation.’ But just as ‘age estimation’ does not mean that there is no actual age of an individual and that biological age changes don’t exist, ‘sex estimation’ does not mean that there isn’t a biological sex binary.” She also contested the AAA’s claim that anthropologists’ use of “sex estimation” is meant to accommodate people who identify as transgender or non-binary. Rather, she said, “sex estimation” is used when “anthropologists are not 100 [percent] sure of their accuracy for a variety of reasons, including that the remains may be fragmented.” But as these methods improve—which was a focus of her talk—such “estimations” become increasingly determinative.

After making that unfounded allegation against Weiss, the AAA further embarrasses itself by claiming that “There is no single biological standard by which all humans can be reliably sorted into a binary male/female sex classification,” and that sex and gender are “historically and geographically contextual, deeply entangled, and dynamically mutable categories.”

Each of these assertions is empirically false. An individual’s sex can be determined by observing their primary sex organs, or gonads, as these organs determine the type of gamete an individual can or would have the function to produce. The existence of a very rare subset of individuals with developmental conditions that make their sex difficult to assess does not substantiate the existence of a third sex. Sex is binary because are only two sexes, not because every human in existence is neatly classifiable. Additionally, while some organisms are capable of changing sex, humans are not among them. Therefore, the assertion that human sex is “dynamically mutable” is false.

Weiss appropriately highlights the “false equivalency” inherent in the claim that the existence of people with intersex conditions disproves the binary nature of sex. “People who are born intersex or with disorders of sex development are not nonbinary or transgender, they are individuals with medical pathologies,” she said. “We would not argue that because some people are born with polydactyly (extra fingers or toes), often seen in inbred populations, that you can’t say that humans have ten fingers and ten toes. It's an absurd conclusion.”

On September 29, the AAA posted a Letter of Support on its website, penned by anthropologists Agustin Fuentes, Kathryn Clancy, and Robin Nelson, endorsing the decision to cancel the “Let’s Talk About Sex” session. Again, the primary motivation cited was the panel’s opposition to the supposed “settled science” concerning sex. The authors disputed the panelists’ claim that the term “sex” was being supplanted by “gender” in anthropology, claiming instead that there is “massive work on these terms, and their entanglements and nuances.” They also reiterated the AAA’s false accusation that the term “sex determination” was problematic and outdated. Nonetheless, the canceled panel could have served as a prime venue to discuss these issues.

In response to these calls for censorship, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) issued an open letter to the AAA and CASCA. FIRE characterized the groups’ decision to cancel the panel as a “retreat” from their scientific mission, which “requires unwavering dedication to free inquiry and open dialogue.” It argued that this mission “cannot coexist with inherently subjective standards of ‘harm,’ ‘safety,’ and ‘dignity,’ which are inevitably used to suppress ideas that cause discomfort or conflict with certain political or ideological commitments.” FIRE implored the AAA and CASCA to “reconsider this decision and to recommit to the principles of intellectual freedom and open discourse that are essential to the organizations’ academic missions.” FIRE’s open letter has garnered signatures from nearly 100 academics, including Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker and Princeton University’s Robert P. George. FIRE invites additional academic faculty to add their names.

The initial letter and subsequent statement by the AAA/CASCA present a particularly jarring illustration of the undermining of science in the name of “social justice.” The organizations have embarrassed themselves yet lack the self-awareness to realize it. The historian of science Alice Dreger called the AAA and CASCA presidents’ use of the term “cardinal sin” appropriate “because Pérez and Heller are working from dogma so heavy it is worthy of the Vatican.” Indeed, they have fallen prey to gender ideologues, driven into a moral panic by the purported dangers of defending the existence of biological sex to people whose sex distresses them. The AAA/CASCA have determined that it is necessary not only to lie to these people about their sex but also to deceive the rest of us about longstanding, foundational, and universal truths about sex.

Science can advance only within a system and culture that values open inquiry and robust debate. The AAA and CASCA are not just barring a panel of experts with diverse and valid perspectives on biological sex from expressing their well-considered conclusions; they are denying conference attendees the opportunity to hear diverse viewpoints and partake in constructive conversations on a controversial subject. Such actions obstruct the path of scientific progress.

“When you move away from the truth, no good can come from it,” Weiss says. The AAA and CASCA would be wise to ponder that reality.

==

I miss the days when anti-science meant creationists with "Intelligent Design," flat Earthers, and Jenny McCarthy-style MMR anti-vaxers.

It's weird that archaeologists are now denying evolution and pretending not to know how babies are made. Looks like creationists aren't the only evolution-denial game in town any more.

#Colin Wright #anti science #gender ideology #queer theory #anthropology #biology denial #sex is binary #censorship #disinvitation #cancel culture #genderwang #moral panic #biological sex #biology #human biology #ideological corruption #ideological capture #gametes #religion is a mental illness

[anendoandfriendo]

Sex-replusion is going to exist weather there is a purity culture or not.

Maybe the solution here is to acknowledge yes sex scenes can be in some movies but don't need to be in EVERY movie to have it be a movie geared towards adults???

Stop moralizing sex scenes as "good" and forcing them onto people by putting them in EVERY movie, and maybe other people shall stop moralizing them as "bad" and trying to force you to take them out of movies.

Like, the unfortunate thing here is the assholes pushing purity culture have an actual point in this case, but they're stating it to the incorrect end/motive here.

Also, people calling themselves "prudes" as a reclamation because none of you want to admit sex repulsion is also queer is kind of on you, not the people calling themselves prudes. That isn't a purity culture issue, that's a "I am either asexual, sex-repulsed, or possibly both but do not know it/am not accepted by the queer community in general and am SCARED of you," thing.

#Stop being an exclusionist and maybe purity culture wouldn't grip its little claws into generation Z. #queer #sex repulsion #asexuality #purity culture #anti purity culture #prudes #“sex scenes in movies” discourse #we are probably stating this all very badly but this is the best wordage we have got right now unfortunately for you readers

[ihhfhonao3]

Sex aversion/romance aversion = valid

Sex repulsion/romance repulsion = valid

Sex negativity/romance negativity = not valid

These are all very different things. While aversion and repulsion towards sex and romance aren’t really controllable things, negativity towards them is and is not okay.

Sex/romance negativity is a mindset that sex/romance are bad, dirty, and in some cases, “sinful.” Some aces/aros that have these views even see themselves as superior to allosexuals and alloromantics just because they are ace/aro, which is obviously not okay.

Repulsion is the feeling that sex/romance are personally found gross and not for you, and aversion is not wanting one or both of them for yourself or in your own life. There are stark differences between all these feelings and ideas. Sex/romance negativity is bad, aversion and repulsion are not.

The main difference being that where the negative look down upon allos and think they’re better than them, the repulsed and the averse do not and usually keep their feelings to themselves but set personal boundaries to keep themselves safe.

Support your local repulsed/averse a-spec today, and kick a negative a-spec for me while you’re at it ❤️

#asexual #asexuality #sex repulsed #sex averse #alloace #aroace #aromantic #aromanticism #romance repulsed #romance averse #aroallo #lgbt #lgbtq #lgbtqia #queer #fuck purity culture #anti purity culture

[uter-us]

when I first told my grandma I stopped shaving she literally went "oh dear God" and rambled abt how armpit hair specifically is unhygienic and makes you smell bad

and I brought up how men have armpit hair too and it's not unhygienic and that we all know their armpit hair wouldnt make THEM smell bad

and she was like "oh well I think it's gross on men too"

and like I've been seeing this increasingly often?? like after pointing out the double standard, people (specifically women but I've heard it from one man too in my experience) are like "well I think that its gross for men to" and it like... makes me sad to think about the lengths women will go to for justification

because like the fact is: neither sex's body hair is unhygienic. and the VAST majority of people recognize that for men, and yet shaving our bodies is still pressured for women in a way its simply just not for men... because its not about cleanliness, its about our appearance and beauty. and it's not "feminist" to think EVERYONE should be shaving their bodies ?? I don't understand this take at all. it's very weird

#radfem #radical feminist safe #sex based oppression #radical feminism #male socialization #anti shaving #anti beauty standards #anti beauty industry #anti beauty culture #not j a reblog tag

[mikasasrippedtoenail]

Forget practicing celibacy women here can't even give up shaving

#radblr #radical feminism #terfsafe #radical feminists do interact #radical feminists do touch #trans exclusionary radical feminist #radical feminist safe #female seperatism #women are the superior sex #Radica #radical feminist #radical feminist community #Radical feminist #gender abolition #Shaving #Anti beauty #anti beauty culture #anti beauty industry #anti beauty standards

[pawberri]

I don't like sexualization of children in any form, I don't like feral porn, I don't like profic culture... pls just block me if thats your thing

#i dont wnt you to be harassed i dont want purity culture or anti sex culture whatever but just block me it triggers me and find it unethical

[ciderjacks]

hey if u guys r sad about ofmd and want another show with gay people to watch you should consider watching Deadloch. It’s really good it’s really really good uh it might get a second season if the creators decide to do that.

if you watch good omens you’ll be able to watch Deadloch they’re on the same service. Uhhhh One of the actors from ofmd is there shes one half of the main duo (the other half is played by Kate Box who’s an amazing actor and Dulcie is now one of my fav characters ever) gets to wear an open Hawaiian shirt for like 3 of the 8 episodes which is a bonus. It’s extremely gay and it’s fun and beautifully written and no queer characters die and it’s satisfying and funny and Please watch it I’m begging you please watch itPLEASE

#ofmd #deadloch #PLEASEEEEEE please Im begging Im on my hands and my knees PLEASE WATCH THIS SHOW #It’s not shy about being gay it practically opens with gay sex ok please pleaseee watch it #It’s got so many amazing characters every character is so well written it’s a detective satire that ends on a pretty openly anti cop note #The main characters work so well together and the actors have such good chemistry and the storytelling is so good and well done #Literally my only my singular criticism of the entire show is that I think the lighting in some scenes could be brighter so you can #Actually tell what’s going on bc it’s sort of hard to at certain points #THATS MY ONLY CRITICISM AT ALL ITS THAT GOOD #Ive watched it 10 times now I’m still finding new stuff and connecting things it hasn’t gotten old yet #It’s seriously like unironically a masterpiece of a show. I would like it just as much if everything else was the same but the characters #Were straight #Though given how much of it is tied to gay and specifically lesbian culture it would be sort of hard to do that LOL #but still. like hypothetically. If it was straight I would not like it any less I would still be just as crazy about it

[tothe1ighthouse]

Glamorization of abortion by the media

I have never seen anyone talk about this before, and I would love to express my opinion on this topic since I am familiar with teen pregnancy and abortion.

It has come to my attention that many people on social media seem to view abortion as something glamorous and empowering, not as a basic female right. Content like "get pregnant so you can get an abortion to prove pro lifers wrong and bc its girl pwr" or "in some years there will be the first trans woman to ever have an abortion" that one can see mostly all over tiktok makes me think that people are completely missing out the point.

Well known it is, abortion existed from antiquity. Women of all times used various methods to abort, some dangerous and some safer. As the years passed of course abortion became a huge taboo among society since it was strongly believed(and still is) that a fetus is as alive as a grown human being. All this stigma caused women to try so many different ways to abort and most of them would turn out fatal. Although we live in the era of technology abortion is still not entirely safe and has many impacts on a female's physical and psychological health.

Truly debating on weather I should use my self as an example or not, but abortion definitely wasn't a girl power slay girlboss experience for a 15 year old girl. Not only me, but millions of young girls get so easily influenced by the romanticism of abortion by the media and then wonder why they don't feel the way those people told them they'd feel. I am absolutely pro choice, but pro choice does not mean ignoring the impact of abortion on women's health.

No matter if abortion is someone's choice or not, the process is 90% of the time an emotional rollercoaster. It is absolutely normal for women to feel guilt, sadness, emptiness afterwards and yet the media makes it look so abnormal because according to them aborting a fetus "is pure empowerment and of course how can one be sad after doing such a girlboss move" right???

My heart is with all the women who have had an abortion for whatever reason and I truly hope the process found them well ♡. It saddens me that although abortion always existed among people it's still not considered a basic right in so many countries. So instead of making pointless statements about abortions we should speak more about their importance and fight for the obtainment of it.

I am glad to have this privilege, but I know that many of my sisters don't and I wish to fight for them.

#radfem #radical feminism #radical feminists do interact #radical feminist community #radblr #pro terf #lesbian #terfsafe #gender critical #anti beauty culture #anti sex work #womanhood #abortion #womens rights #wlw #pro abortion #pro choice #intersectional feminism #marxist feminism