"

“It’s important to clarify that sex education that teaches about pleasure doesn’t have to teach about technique (though elective college-level sex education that does this is great). Letting teens know that women usually achieve orgasm through the rubbing of the clitoris, whether fingers, mouth, object, or penis, isn’t the same as screening an instructional video on giving good cunnilingus. It’s not the same as writing down the names of sex-toy shops on the blackboard, or handing out diagrams of cool and exciting coital positions. And teaching that lubricants reduce pain and increase safety and pleasure during many kinds of sex should be thought of not as performance advice, but on par with vital lessons about condom use.

Real sex education is not the same as porn education. Instead, it’s about teaching that pleasure is an important part of any sexual relationship. It’s about teaching that there is nothing wrong with wanting to feel sexual pleasure and seeking it out, so long as it is done safely and responsibly. It’s about teaching comfort with one’s body and a lack of shame over desires, and there is more to sex for all people than sticking penises into vaginas. Real sex education teaches how to go about making intelligent , safe choices, rather than just stating the choices available. I believe there is a big difference. And I believe that teaching teens to make smart choices about sex must involve teaching them that having sex, partnered or alone, can be a smart choice”.

"

—

Real Sex Education by Cara Kulwicki in Yes Means Yes

(via fem-blog)

In short let’s teach that sex should feel good for both partners, and it’s not something for you to just endure because your partner likes it or it’s what you’re expected to do.

Way too many people get well into adulthood before learning this.

(via rubyvroom)

"I don’t think it’s terribly controversial to note that women, from a young age, are required to consider the reality of the opposite gender’s consciousness in a way that men aren’t. This isn’t to say that women don’t often misunderstand, mistreat, and stereotype men, both in literature and in life. But on a basic level, functioning in society requires that women register that men are fully conscious; it is not really possible for a woman to throw up her hands and write men off as eternally unknowable space aliens — and even if she says she has, she cannot really behave as though she has. Every element of her life — from reading books about boys and men to writing papers about the motivations of male characters to being attentive to her own safety to navigating most any institutional or professional or economic sphere — demands an ironclad familiarity with, and belief in, the idea that men really are fully human entities. And no matter how many men come to the same conclusions about women, the structure of society simply does not demand so strenuously that they do so. If you didn’t really deep down believe that women were, in general, exactly as conscious as you, you could probably still get by in life. You could probably still get a book deal. You could probably still get elected to office."

—

Jennifer duBois, Writing Across Gender (via florida-uterati)

To apply a bit of intersectionality to this…women of color and the many marginalized communities we belong to—especially communities of color—have been saying this for a minute.

(via racialicious)

Reblogged for commentary! 

(via madamethursday)

"Although most boys figure out how to bring themselves to orgasm by age thirteen, half of girls don’t have their first orgasms until their late teens, twenties, or beyond. Teenage girls widely agree that they get the message loud and clear that masturbation is something boys do, but girls don’t, can’t, or shouldn’t. The cultural focus on intercourse tells young women to expect they’ll begin to experience sexual pleasure once they have sex with a man (whether or not they’re even interested in sex with men). Nearly all teen boys, on the other hand, experience sexual pleasure long before they get their hands—or other body parts—into a partner’s pants. Despite the massive advances in women’s equality, young women’s sexuality is stuck in a surprising paradox. Young women are sold provocative clothes but aren’t taught where to find their own clitoris. Many girls give their boyfriends oral sex, but are too uncomfortable with their own bodies to allow the guys to return the favor. It’s still a radical act to say that women need and deserve access to information about their own sexual pleasure—not just about the risks and negative consequences of sex."

— Dorian Solot, I Love Female Orgasm: An Extraordinary Orgasm Guide  (via snowstorminjuly)

sonofahurricane:

ihaveabsolutelynoidea:

legitimate criticisms of feminism:

-transmisogyny and the lack of inclusion of transwomen

-the racist history behind it and the lack of inclusion of woc

-ignoring and invalidating women with disabilities

-pretty much anything that falls under lack of intersectionality

-internalized misogyny and girl hate

-promotion of political lesbianism

-radscum

illegitimate criticisms of feminism:

-a feminist was really mean to me once

-they’re sexist against men

finally an accurate depiction of my feelings about feminism

"We talk about employment or staying home as a matter of choice, which obscures what it takes to make that choice: money and a mate. Do books praising the stay-home life ever suggest that if it’s really best for children, the government, which supposedly cares about their well-being, should make that possible for every family? The extraordinary hostility aimed at low-income and single mothers shows that what’s at issue is not children—who can thrive under many different arrangements as long as they have love, safety, respect, a reasonable standard of living. It’s women. Rich ones like Ann Romney are lauded for staying home. Poor ones need the ‘dignity of work’—ideally ‘from day one.’"

— Ann Romney, Working Woman? | Katha Pollitt (via theamericanbear)

stfufauxminists:

I may have just made these two signs for tomorrow’s protest.

thepoliticalpartygirl:

isabelthespy:

so-treu:

newsweek:

Here’s this week’s cover, on newsstands and the iPad tomorrow morning. And the summary of the corresponding story: 

In an age where women are dominating - in the workplace, at school, at home - why are they seeking to be dominated in their love lives? Recent media portrayals have shown that a rising number of modern women fantasize about being overpowered, while studies are turning out statistics that bewilder feminists. New shows like HBO’s Girls and books like Fifty Shades of Grey are showcasing the often hidden desire for powerlessness. But why? Katie Roiphe examines the submissive yet empowered female in Newsweek. “It is perhaps inconvenient for feminism that the erotic imagination does not submit to politics, or even changing demographics,” she writes.

We haven’t seen the cover story yet, but color us intrigued! Let’s hear your pre-thoughts, tumblr.

lolololol “women are dominating????”

WHICH women are dominating?

what fucking race are they? how old are they? do they have someone at home taking care of their kids while they’re out “dominating?” is THAT woman dominating? are the dominating on reservations? on the border? in inner cities? are they citizens, these dominating women?

lol women are dominating and HOW does the u.s. compare to other countries in terms of women in political office? right.

but yes, let’s explore white cis het upwardly mobile women’s desire to submit. because it’s so interesting. because their inner lives are so underexplored.

ETA: and what outdated ass “feminism” is this where being a sub is sooooooo inconceivable and contrary to feminist principles?? miss katie, the second wave is over. you need to start checking your memos more frequently.

look everything so-treu says is spot on but I gotta say I stopped reading the newsweek post at “Katie roiphe examines.”

Or, in other words, “Women: WTF? We explore women as if they were a monolithic alien race.” Because ALL women are SO empowered now (they are also all cis and white), which is why predominantly cis, white, male lawmakers are stripping them of their rights (while magazine editors strip them of their clothes because … TITTILATING!)

whynotshesaid:

newwavefeminism:

ladypolitik:

offbeatorbit:

lavender-labia:

“Good morning New York. I’m sorry to bother you. I’m not hungry. I do not want food or money, I just need a little support. I got dumped last week and I’m trying to give her space but I can’t do nothing. If you have any words of advice for me, a quote that resonates with you or a story about second chances, please raise your hand and I’ll come to you. I have sharpie markers and I’ll stay as long as it takes.”

lavender-labia:

cuddlingisoptional:

I normally do not reblog this kind of shit, but for any dude that has ever been dumped, still in love and desperately tried to win her heart back, no matter the circumstance…this is legit shit. And do not give me that bullshit “dude, if she dumped you she obviously doesnt want to be with you, just get over it, you pathetic asshole”…First of all, fuck you. Second of all, fuck you.

Your comments are the epitome of rape culture and everything that is wrong with concept of friend-zoning. Fuck you. Like actually fuck you, you entitled piece of shit. Women owe you NOTHING. Women do know what they want, and if they dump you it IS because they don’t want to be with you. Stop perpetuating the sexist assumption that women don’t know their own mind. No means no, and any other interpretation is rape culture at work. You and your commentary can actually fuck off. 

As for the OP: I’m speechless. “I’m trying to give her space, but I’m walking around with her face on a sandwich board and I’m convincing everyone that she’s the horrible person here and I’m so unfairly victimised.” Cool story, bro. Tell me more about how you’re irresistible and why everyone should want to be with you.

Reblogging to add: behaviours like this become even more terrifying when you consider that the riskiest time in a woman’s life is when she breaks up with a male partner (in that she is significantly more likely to be murdered than at any other point in her life). Too often that partner perceives the break up as a challenge to their authority/masculinity and take drastic action to either a) get them back or b) stop anyone else from having them either. That - in addition to the rapey/entitled undertones - is what makes this dude’s actions so fucking terrifying. 

what a loser

Whoa. That awkward moment you unwittingly expose to the universe precisely why you’ve been dumped in the first place.

The most disconcerting part is that it’s teaming with unspoken manipulation.

Think about it: we dont know why she broke up with him, but a stunt like this makes people presume it wouldn’t have been for good reason. Strangers are suppose to presume he’s The Good Guy, when for all we know, she’s getting  away from him because he was — hmm, let’s see — controlling and  lacked boundaries. Perhaps even exhibited abusive behaviour toward her. We dont know, but this display? Doesnt exactly help dispel suspicions.

This is like, The Nice Guy Complex™ strung out on the purest cut of Peruvian cocaine.

And @”cuddlingisoptional” — change your moniker, bro. If you subscribe to or empathize with that level of territorial thinking where DATING is concerned? Yeah, change your  handle. Talk about false advertising.

people are not obligated to be with you because you want them and feel an ownership over then and their love. sorry.

and can we talk about the fact that if this was a woman she would get called the most derogatory of things? needy, desperate, stupid, foolish clingly, etc… but when its this guy its commendable. oh, alright

“Win her back”?  Newsflash: she’s not a stuffed animal.  You don’t get to take her home because you popped four balloons with a dart at the state fair. She’s a human being.  She gets to make her own decisions about these things.

My ex-husband tried to “win me back” after I left him and it was so awkward and horrible.  He tried to be very romantic about it, with flowers and mix CDs and grand gestures, but one day he said something that showed his hand.  He described an analogy in which he and my new boyfriend were dogs and I was the mechanical rabbit, and they were chasing me around the track, and whoever caught me would win.  

Shall I enumerate all of the ways in which this is horribly, horribly wrong?

1. I am not a mechanical rabbit being propelled around the track by a motorized arm.  I am not just some mindless object that is owned by other people. I am a human being.  
2. I left him because I did not love him, and I loved someone else.  No points scored, no race to win - just emotions and decisions and agency, because again, I am a human being.
3. I made my decision very clear to him, over and over again, and yet he still did not get it, because to him, I was not a human being.  I was merely an extension of his own ego.  He was the only human being in the relationship.
4. That he even thought this was an appropriate thing to say to me speaks to just how thoroughly he had dehumanized me.  He did not understand that comparing one’s ex-wife to a lure to be captured by a man who chases her down like a greyhound is not only not romantic but also downright offensive. He thought there was nothing wrong with referring to a human being in such terms.

See the common thread here?  The common thread in which I, the “lady to be won over,” was utterly dehumanized in this exchange?  It didn’t matter what I wanted, or did not want, or even that I actually wanted anything at all.  The only thing that mattered was that he thought we should be together.

P.S.  I don’t think it’s any huge coincidence that my ex-husband was abusive, controlling and manipulative, do you?  In fact, I’d say that his attempts to “win me back” were yet another manifestation of the same destructive patterns that had characterized our entire relationship.

"The claim that sex workers “sell our bodies” is not only logically absurd (I was a prostitute for years, but my body is still right here with me), but totally sexist because it is based on the notion that a woman’s sexuality is her entire worth. The belief behind this expression is that since a woman has nothing of value to offer except her sexuality, if she “sells” that she has “sold herself” and there is nothing left. The fact that anti-sex worker activists use this expression so often says a lot about them."

—

Maggie McNeal Commenting on Chicago Tribune article (via thefumoblu)

So true never thought about that.

(via cuntygrrl)

It’s ridiculous that so many people actually never considered this before.

(via everythingbutharleyquinn)

wow seriously? 

baddominicana:

sooolondon:

velocicrafter:

sourcedumal:

talldarkbishoujo:

killyourenemies:

“I figured out how to help radfems become real empathetic human beings.

You have to call them out on their shit.

You need at least 15 people constantly doing this for a week.

You MUST break their spirit.

You need them to expose their personal blog. Radscum often think they can spout bigoted hateful speech and never gain any repercussions. You need to strike them where it hurts. Threaten to oust them. When their feelings are hurt, then they’ll find that they have to take responsibility for condoning their hateful words.”

And us radical feminists are just being paranoid? This shit is an incitement for violence for real-real. 

Break our spirit? Expose our personal details?

Why does this not sound that unfamiliar? Oh yeah. Because that’s exactly what men have being doing to women for a very, very, very long time. Just because you dang up synthetic hormones, wear a dress (or not wear a dress) and play “woman” does not mean you’ll hide your over-entitled, male-influenced, fucked up and frankly dangerous and bullshit agenda.

Fuck this I’m going to smoke a joint and draw zombies.

Just out of curiosity, how many cis radfems ever been the victim of “for real-real” violence from trans women?

Like do you have some receipts for this irrational fear that a trans woman—a hurt, and rightfully angry trans woman—would cause you legit harm.

Because from where I’m sitting, us cis people are the ones causing all the damn violence, to trans women.

Not to mention, did OP seriously just say that trans women are “playing woman?” Are you fucking seriously saying that shit right now?

Hell to the no. Sit your cisgendered ass DOWN. Take a whole fucking stadium of seats.

And yes, spirits SHOULD be broken if fuckers like you are leading the feminist movement, because you are ACTIVELY OPPRESSING TRANS WOMEN WITH YOUR GENDER ESSENTIALIST BULLSHIT. Your bullshit SHOULD BE CALLED OUT EVERY TIME.

seems like I’ve heard of FAR more instances of cis women harassing trans women than vice versa. #just sayin

has this brand of feminist not heard of “cisgender” or do they just reject it because it’s easier than examining their privilege?

So this is why everyone hates fadfems? Fucking disgusting 

SMH

what the fuck is radical about being a hateful piece of shit towards already severely marginalized people? can someone explain why any of these fuckers should NOT get cut?

OP: no.

listen up:

if you are a feminist who thinks we should just focus on “all women” and not get caught up in the nitty-gritty of intersectionality because it “fragments” the cause -

you sound exactly like the ~humanist~ liberals who spend their time hating on feminists for promoting women’s issues above the issues of men.

Just like women get the shittier bargain in life at large, so do marginalized women even among other women.

Squawking for the cause of “all women” is EXACTLY the same as so-called egalitarians whining about how we should focus on how bad stuff effects us all, la dee da. But you can’t sacrifice the part - especially if it is a marginalized part - in favor of the whole. No one wins, especially the marginalized, because LOL that happens to them every day everywhere else ever anyway.

Why is this so hard

"Though no one would ever think of using the term honor violence (we reserve that descriptor for brown people who live somewhere else, motivated by religious something-or-other or tribal something-or-other), one-third of women murdered every year in the United States are killed by their intimate partners. In 2005 that amounted to 1,181 women, or three women every day. To put that in perspective, the UN estimates there are 5,000 honor killings every year in the entire world. 5,000 in a world of 6 billion versus nearly 1,200 in a single country of 300 million. In other words, a woman in America runs a greater risk of being killed by her husband or boyfriend than a woman in Pakistan."

—

How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love Feminists. (via popmuslim)

gonna staple this to the shirts of everyone who tries to equate domestic violence solely with a nationality or a religion or a culture and not let them take it off until it sinks in.

(via intricate-veins)

Why am I only just seeing these? Virginia State Capitol Women’s Rights Protest, March 3 2012. 31 people were arrested.

edskee:

British GQ Comedy Special trailer w/ Paul Rudd, Ricky Gervais, Jerry Seinfeld, Aziz Ansari, Chris Rock, Robin Williams, Ken Jeong, James Corden, Olivia Wilde, and more!

lol this was pretty useless 

also, I love you Olivia Wilde, but why are you the only woman?

oh wait, because it’s GQ! And in the end you see the two different covers: one of a bunch of guys in shirts (with “Kings of Comedy” written over them) and one with Olivia Wilde in her bra!!!

I’m so SURPRISED!!!!