College student. Overworked, underpaid, eternally hungry.
I like Legend of Korra, Tamora Pierce novels, the Mass Effect and Dragon Age series, and any other media where chicks kick ass and take names.
Salome dances her dance of the seven veils,
The men all eye her like wolves on the hunt, this beautiful girl
finally undressing for them. Finally they can see her
exactly as they want to.
The first veil drops.
In 2007, Kim Kardashian’s ex-boyfriend
released their sex tape against her will.
Kim Kardashian, rather than hide in shame
Used the publicity to promote her own career.
Salome moves like a dream half-remembered.
Salome dances like a siren song. All the men ache
to see the hot sugar of her hip bones.
The second veil drops.
In 2014, Kim Kardashian walks down the aisle
As the whole world watches. If only all of us
were so successful in our revenge.
If only all of us stood in our Louboutin heels
on the backs of the men who betray us,
surveying the world we created for ourselves.
The third veil drops.
Kim Kardashian knows exactly what you think of her.
She presses the cloth tighter against her skin
Her smile is a promise she never intends to keep
We can almost see all of her.
Salome shows us her body
but never her eyes.
The fourth veil is dropping.
The four things most recently tweeted at Kim Kardashian were
@KimKardashian Suck My Dick
@Kim Kardashian Can I Meet Kanye?
@KimKardashian Please Fuck Me
@KimKardashian I Love You. I Love You.
Women are told to keep their legs shut.
Women are told to keep their mouths shut.
Some women are kept silent for so long,
They become experts in the silent theft of power.
The fifth veil has dropped.
Kim Kardashian made $12 million dollars this year
Yesterday, uncountable men in their miserable jobs,
told their miserable friends that Kim was a “dumb whore”
Kim Kardashian will never learn their names.
The sixth veil has dropped.
The seventh veil has dropped.
And Salome sat beside King Herod. And he swore unto her
“Whatsoever thou shalt ask of me, I will give to thee
unto the half of my kingdom”
And she smiled, and said
“Bring me the head of John The Baptist.
Punish the man who hurt me”
holy fucking shit i just
that last line
1. If you don’t like the way he kisses you, you won’t like the way he fucks you. Get up and leave.
2. If he won’t go down on you, but expects you to go down on him, laugh. Get up and leave.
3. If you don’t want to do something and he doesn’t respect that, slap him round the face. Get up and leave.
4. If he isn’t okay with the imperfections on your skin, if he says they turn him off, get up and leave.
5. If you don’t want to shave your legs and he thinks that’s disgusting and refuses to touch them, get up and leave.
6. If he doesn’t see your body as a masterpiece, as a complete work of art, get up and leave.
7. If he makes you feel uncomfortable about any part of your body, get up and leave.
Someone in a thread over at the Pathfinder RPG pafe said said “These personal issues really distracts from the game. Does anyone remember the days when none of this stuff was a friggin issue and all we had was fun????”
Such a time never existed, and if you think it does it’s because either as a guy you never had to deal with it, or for some reason your experiences were sheltered.
You know what days *I* remember?
I remember being told no matter how well I rolled, my female D&D fighter could not, as a matter of the *rules* be as strong as a man. Another player could decide his 13-year-old boy PC had a 18/00 Strength because he was magically blessed, but as a female character I *couldn’t*.
I remember bringing in a new character and being told they’d pick me up at the next village, and my background would be randomly rolled for. And do you know what was rolled? Harlot. And then I had to see what KIND of harlot. But, I was assured, this was totally fair. Because I might end up being a pimp, which would mean I was a male character.
But no, I was a wanton wench.
I remember not being ABLE to find a figure for a female warrior who didn’t have her tits, ass, thighs, or all of the above exposed. I remember being shown an editorial in Dragon Magazine where Kim Mohan *admitted* that sexualization in female miniatures was a problem, but claimed the Strength cap wasn’t “something any reasonable person could argue with” … AND didn’t offer any suggestions on how to deal with either issue.
I remember being told that since my magic-user’s level title for the next level was “sorcerer,” and not “sorceress,” and there was NO evidence in the rules of female sorcerers, I could NOT gain that level.
These were the people who TAUGHT me to role-play. And yeah that last argument is stupid, but I had NO WAY of knowing that. I mean there were racial caps for classes, and a Strength cap for gender, so why wouldn’t I accept a gender cap for classes?
Those days sucked. Roleplaying was so great a thrill I wanted to do it anyway. It wasn’t until one of the toads I played with physically assaulted me I left that group, because I was young and impressionable and they had LOTS of evidence that was just How the Game Was Played.
Never, EVER think that HOW a company describes things, presents itself, covers issue of gender and sexual orientation in the rules, and comports itself with customers doesn’t have a MAJOR impact on the culture of people playing the game.
TSR, and then WotC, had a LONG history of showing that women are second-class PCs at best, and mostly exist as sex objects to cling to the thighs of Conan-like heroes. Played by Boys. Gary Gygaz once said that women’s Brains are “Wired Differently,” and that’s why they just aren’t interested in rpgs. Of course that attitude impacted how woman were portrayed, and thus how a lot of players and DMs played.
It’s NOT that “All Cheesecake is Bad.” I’m not claiming you can’t have sexy character and nods to pulp – you just have to have them for both genders, and you have to have more than that. You have to show a RANGE of characters, male and female, spellcaster and warrior, preferable in every product but absolutely in the core rules.
Paizo and Pathfinder do a MUCH better job of that than anything WotC did before 5e (and 5e is too new to fairly judge either way). And so yeah, it is NO surprise to me when I can have fun with every Pathfinder group I ever meet, and get inappropriately harassed by about a third of the MTG and D&D groups I encounter.
So yeah, this stuff matters. It has ALWAYS mattered. And we NEED it in order to allow EVERYONE to “all have fun.”
For readings on the correlation in horror between puberty and the monstrous, see:
I will add Carol Clover’s Men, Women, and Chain Saws here, although she’s concerned more with identification, monstrous-feminine as men’s horror, and the maternal aspects of possession tales (including a section on possession as oral penetration). Although both Creed and Clover are important feminist horror theorists who work in Psychoanalytical lenses, Barbara Creed talks more about transformation than Carol Clover does. And transformation is key to horror movies about how women are terrifying.
For variations on a theme, watch Ginger Snaps, Carrie, and Teeth together.
(Bonus: here is Kristeva’s Powers of Horror: an Essay on Abjection for free online)
I’m 90000% sure I wrote the text below this but it doesn’t link to (probably ff) anywhere. it’s important to keep sources in posts so that you don’t disorient authors about their own pasts,
The first investment monosexuals have in bisexual erasure is an interest in stabilizing sexual orientation. The component of that interest shared by both straights and gays is an interest in knowing one’s place in the social order: both straights and gays value this knowledge because it relieves them of the anxiety of identity interrogation. Straights have a more specific interest in ensuring the stability of heterosexuality because that identity is privileged. Less intuitively, gays also have a specific interest in guarding the stability of homosexuality, insofar as they view that stability as the predicate for the “immutability defense” or for effective political mobilization. Bisexuality threatens all of these interests because it precludes both straights and gays from “proving” that they are either straight or gay. This is because straights (for example) can only prove that they are straight by adducing evidence of cross-sex desire. (They cannot adduce evidence of the absence of same-sex desire, as it is impossible to prove a negative.) But this means that straights can never definitively prove that they are straight in a world in which bisexuals exist, as the individual who adduces cross-sex desire could be either straight or bisexual, and there is no definitive way to arbitrate between those two possibilities. Bisexuality is thus threatening to all monosexuals because it makes it impossible to prove a monosexual identity.
The second interest monosexuals have in bisexual erasure is an interest in retaining the importance of sex as a distinguishing trait in society. Straights and gays have a shared investment in this because to be straight or to be gay is to discriminate erotically on the basis of sex. Straights have a specific interest in preserving the importance of sex because sex norms are currently read through a heterosexual matrix: to be a man or a woman in contemporary American society is in part defined by one’s sexual attractiveness to the opposite sex. Gays also have a particular interest in sex distinctions, as homosexuality is often viewed as a way to engage in complete sex separatism—that is, as a means of creating single-sex communities that are bonded together erotically as well as socially and politically. Bisexuality endangers all of these interests because it posits a world in which sex need not (or should not) matter as much as monosexuals want it to matter. Indeed, bisexuals and asexuals are the only sexual orientation groups that have at least the capacity not to discriminate on the basis of sex in any
aspect of their lives.
The final interest that monosexuals have in bisexual erasure is an interest in defending norms of monogamy. Both straights and gays share this interest, as the dominant ethic of contemporary American society favors dyadic relationships. Straights may have a particular interest in this insofar as the form of nonmonogamy associated with bisexuals has been connected to HIV infection, with bisexual “promiscuity” acting as a bridge (phantasmatically if not actually) between the “infected” gay population and the “uninfected” straight population. Gays may have a particular interest in monogamy insofar as they seek to assimilate into “mainstream” society. Bisexuality threatens all of these interests because bisexuals are often perceived to be “intrinsically” nonmonogamous.
Thus, along at least three different axes, both gays and straights have distinct but overlapping interests that are threatened by the concept of bisexuality. It is thus unsurprising that both of these sexual orientation groups collude in bisexual erasure.