On why male bisexuality seems to be disappearing

bisexualskies:


[trigger warning: misogyny, sapphobia, sexual assault, rape]


crossdreamers:

imageMark Simpson has written a great essay on why male bisexuality is taboo, while female bisexuality is considered erotic.  

Here is an excerpt:

"Straight women now have something to gain and little to lose by admitting an interest in other women. Rather than exile them to the acrylic mines of Planet Lesbo, it makes them more interesting, more adven­tur­ous, more mod­ern… just more.

"For the most part, however, straight men still have nothing to gain and everything to lose by making a similar admission. It renders them considerably… less. Unlike women, men’s gender is immediately suspect if they express an interest in the same sex. What’s more, any male homosexuality still tends to be seen as an expression of impotence with women. In other words: men’s attraction to men is equivalent to and probably a product of emasculation.

"A straight man admitting that he finds masculinity desirable – as so many clearly, thrillingly do – threatens to cost him the very thing he values most: not only his own manhood and his potency, his reputation with the ladies, but his lads-together homoso­cial intimacy with other men. It’s a nasty, vicious, bitchy trick to play on millions of red-blooded men, but this is what passes for common sense in the modern, Anglo-Saxon world."

Read the whole article here!

In other words: This is an area where the sexism of society punishes men harder much than women.

We see the same in the transgender arena: People are in general are more tolerant of women expressing male interests and expressions than of men embracing traditional feminine interests, clothing or sexual preferences.


bi-privilege:

okay “this is an area where the sexism of society punishes men much harder than women” is one of the most fucked up things i’ve seen in a while, and i just rewatched arielle’s bisexual vs. pansexual video for an ask, so that’s saying something.

the fetishization of bisexual women does not in any way help women out. okay, yeah, maybe in theory people think of bisexuality in women as “modern” or whatever, but in practice? it’s fucking open season on bi women because our very identity is seen as consent, a green light for whatever horny straight men want. nearly fifty percent of bi women are rape survivors—that would include me btw—and i would be a whole lot fucking happier if my bisexuality meant that straight men wouldn’t date me, as opposed to making them think it’s perfectly fine to violate me.

i’m all for talking about how the heteronormative ideals negatively affect bi men, btw, because i get that they totally do. but i am not okay with anyone, especially men, saying that people finding women’s bisexuality “erotic” is in any way positive for women because it is so fucking not. and i am REALLY not fucking okay with an article like this, which is basically celebrating the fucking sexualization and victimization of bi women, being posted in the bi tags without so much as a trigger warning.

repeat after me, people: fetishization is not acceptance.


Yes to everything bi-privilege said! But I also “love” how amazingly the chosen pics capture and exemplify exactly that:
Both men are caught up in a kiss, facing each other, touching, being (the only) subject of their desires.
On the contrary, of the two women doing something vaguely sexual one is out of focus and the other one is not even facing her partner. Oh no, her sensually open mouth, the finger touching her lips, and the intense eye contact are specifically meant to include a third party - the assumed cishet man, the one who gazes at the picture.
One more time female bisexuality is not presented as a distinct sexual identity with bisexual women being subjects of their own desires. Instead it is repackaged and branded for cishet male’s entertainment as something that only exists for his solely pleasure.

Fetishization is not acceptance!
Fetishization is not acceptance!
Fetishization is not acceptance!
FETISHIZATION IS ~NOT~ ACCEPTANCE!

4.5% of the men in the United States is an incredibly high number – that translates into over six million men.

If you added up every US citizen who was officially unemployed or looking for work in 2001, that would be less than the total number of rapists.

If you added up every US citizen who is Jewish, that would still be less than the total number of rapists.

If you added up every teenage boy who had any sort of job – an afterschool job, a summer job, working full-time after dropping out, including all of those – you’d still have over a million fewer people then the total number of rapists.

There are twice as many rapists in the USA as there are single mothers.

For every drunk driver who is in a fatal accident this year, there are over 500 rapists.

If you take every doctor and nurse in the United States; and you added them to every librarian, every cashier, every cop, every postal clerk, and every bank teller in the whole country; you still wouldn’t have as many people as the number of rapists in the United States.

(Think of that a second – think of how often, in your daily life, you’ve seen cops and cashiers and all those other folks. Odds are, you’ve run into rapists more often than that).

To paraphrase Tim Wise: In short, “only” 4.5% of the male population is a lot of people, so that even by the most optimistic assessment of how many men are rapists, there are literally millions out there who not only would but have raped a woman. When combined with those who are less vicious – those who haven’t raped, but would be willing to in the right circumstances, and those who would make excuses for why other men rape, it becomes clear just how real a widespread a problem rape and rape-supportive attitudes are among men today.

http://amptoons.com/blog/2004/05/05/how-many-men-are-rapists/ (via bitterseafigtree)

And there are women who support rapists, who make excuses for them, who blame their victims.  There are female rapists as well, child sexual abusers, prisoners, and the rare f-to-m rapist.  Ours is a culture that tolerates sexual violence.  It excuses it, it looks away, it throws offenders in prison and considers the problem solved.  We never try to cure our culture.

(via tamorapierce)

ilovecharts:

Hours Worked On Minimum Wage In Order To Pay For One University Credit Hour

ilovecharts:

Hours Worked On Minimum Wage In Order To Pay For One University Credit Hour

As a longtime supporter of World Vision, I encouraged readers of my blog to pick up some of the dropped sponsorships after the initial decision. I then felt betrayed when World Vision backtracked, though I urged my readers not to play the same game but to keep supporting their sponsored children, who are of course at no fault in any of this.

But most of all, the situation put into stark, unsettling relief just how misaligned evangelical priorities have become.

When Christians declare that they would rather withhold aid from people who need it than serve alongside gays and lesbians helping to provide that aid, something is wrong.

There is a disproportionate focus on homosexuality that consistently dehumanizes, stigmatizes and marginalizes gay and lesbian people and, at least in this case, prioritizes the culture war against them over and against the important work of caring for the poor.

Evangelicals insist that they are simply fighting to preserve “biblical marriage,” but if this were actually about “biblical marriage,” then we would also be discussing the charity’s policy around divorce.

But we’re not.

Furthermore, Scripture itself teaches that when we clothe and feed those in need, we clothe and feed Christ himself, and when we withhold care from those in need, we withhold it from Christ himself (Matthew 25:31-46).

Why are the few passages about homosexuality accepted uncritically, without regard to context or culture, but the many about poverty so easily discarded?

So, did you guys hear we caught a terrorist last week? →

thepoliticalfreakshow:

So, did you guys hear we caught a terrorist last week?

Being that it is part of my actual job, I tend to read a lot news. A wide variety of it, from many different sources. So, when something important happens, like the girl who played Stephanie Tanner on Full House goes to pick up her dry cleaning, or the FBI arrests someone for terrorism, it is usually something I find out about very quickly. However, I somehow managed to not hear a single word about Robert James Talbot, Jr. being arrested for terrorism last week. Which is  weird because usually, when the FBI arrests someone for terrorism, it ends up all over the damn news.

We hear about it everywhere, from everyone– pundits biting their nails and wondering how we will ever feel safe again, people on the street raging against random strangers who happen to share the physical characteristics, religion, or political sentiment of the bastard who wanted to endanger the lives of our American citizens.

Not only that, but we usually end up rearranging our whole lives to account for what said terrorist was trying to do. I mean, we still have to awkwardly take our shoes off at the airport because one dude tried to hide a bomb in his shoe.

But Robert James Talbot, Jr. gets arrested for terrorism and I don’t see a thing about it until days later, until this weekend when I happened upon this article from the Southern Poverty Law Center. So weird! In fact, most of the other articles I’ve been able to find are from local Texas news sources. Very few national outlets have even bothered with the story.

Talbot is a white, radical right-wing conservative who was arrested by the FBI on charges of “attempted interference with commerce by robbery, solicitation to commit a crime of violence and possession of an explosive material.”

He set up a Facebook page, “American Insurgent Movement” in order to recruit five or six like-minded folks for what he called a “a Pre-Constitutionalist Community that offers those who seek True patriotism and are looking for absolute Freedom by doing the Will of God. Who want to restore America Pre- Constitutionally and look forward to stopping the Regime with action by bloodshed.” People, whom he said, must be willing to walk away from their lives to “stop the regime.” His plan was to rob banks to fund his revolution, and then also blow up mosques. He claimed to have already cased several Bank of Americas.

He wasn’t shy about his intentions, and even brazenly posted the following messages to the group’s Facebook page:

“Liberty movement starts this summer for those who are up for anything. Email the admin if your [sic] interested in walking away from your life (we have weapons if you need a weapon) to stop the Regime. We always will be recruiting. …You will be giving your life for a greater nation restoring liberty and the Lord himself. Stopping the New World Order and banking cartels.”

“That is exactly what I will have my men do during the heist. Same goes with the Muslims. Mosques are to be a blast! With three of my guys with FA [full automatic] AK’s [AK-47 semi-automatic rifles], we will send that white house worthless piece of dirt and his Muslim brotherhood a message they will never forget.”

And on March 15th…

“In a few weeks me and my team are going active for Operation Liberty. I will not be able to post no more. We will be the revolution, things will happen nationwide or in the states. They will call us many names and spin things around on media. Just remember we fight to stop Marxism, liberalism, Central banking Cartels and the New World Order.”

He was arrested after meeting with three undercover FBI agents who were pretending to be interested in helping him rob an armored car, and providing him with C-4 explosives. He also told the undercover agents that he planned to locate and kill a police officer who arrested him for drunk driving.

Now, call me crazy, but I have a feeling that if Talbot had been, instead, a Muslim man plotting to blow up Christian churches, that this is something that would have made the news cycle, in pretty heavy rotation. Despite the fact that two people with a similar ideology once committed one of the most tragic incidents of terrorism on U.S. soil, it is highly unlikely that other like-minded folks–like Larry Klayman and friends–will be put on the do-not-fly list anytime soon.

It’s unlikely that there will be any talk about how Fox News, Alex Jones and other right-wing news outlets are inciting potential terrorists by convincing them that they are actually under attack.

You can say that it wasn’t news because he was caught before going through with it, but shoe-guy was caught before he went through with it as well, and we certainly heard a lot about that.

noworld42mro:

emily-adomestic:

I made these to put up around my school for my school’s GSA. They are quotes from some little known bisexuals about their bisexuality.

Lets stop bisexual erasure and remember, bisexuality is real!

Bisexual erasure is a huge thing, even in the LG community. Let’s raise the awareness!

10 Bisexual Celebrities That Everyone Keeps Labeling As Gay Or Straight →

what a beautiful article

blinkpopshift:

brucesterling:

*So, whatever happened in 1970, one wonders

Why we need a new economic model

blinkpopshift:

brucesterling:

*So, whatever happened in 1970, one wonders

Why we need a new economic model

While evolutionary psychology suggests that women pass on casual sex due to an inherent lack of sexual desire, Conley says there’s an entirely different reason. She posits that women say “thanks, but no thanks” for fear of being judged. She also says that women have serious reservations about whether a one-night stand would be enjoyable with a new partner. She tries to explain to men, “The reason women are turning you down for casual sex seems to be that, for one thing, a lot of you are calling them sluts afterward.” Also, “A lot of you aren’t bothering to try to be good in bed.” Preach.

The CDC call for redefining "normal weight" upwards. →

doodledinmypants:

katsudonburi:

calystarose:

thisisthinprivilege:

The study, by Katherine M. Flegal and her associates at the C.D.C. and the National Institutes of Health, found that all adults categorized as overweight and most of those categorized as obese have a lower mortality risk than so-called normal-weight individuals. If the government were to redefine normal weight as one that doesn’t increase the risk of death, then about 130 million of the 165 million American adults currently categorized as overweight and obese would be re-categorized as normal weight instead.

To put some flesh on these statistical bones, the study found a 6 percent decrease in mortality risk among people classified as overweight and a 5 percent decrease in people classified as Grade 1 obese, the lowest level (most of the obese fall in this category). This means that average-height women — 5 feet 4 inches — who weigh between 108 and 145 pounds have a higher mortality risk than average-height women who weigh between 146 and 203 pounds. For average-height men — 5 feet 10 inches — those who weigh between 129 and 174 pounds have a higher mortality risk than those who weigh between 175 and 243 pounds.

The study, by Katherine M. Flegal and her associates at the C.D.C. and the National Institutes of Health, found that all adults categorized as overweight and most of those categorized as obese have a lower mortality risk than so-called normal-weight individuals. If the government were to redefine normal weight as one that doesn’t increase the risk of death, then about 130 million of the 165 million American adults currently categorized as overweight and obese would be re-categorized as normal weight instead.

Sorry, I just feel the need to repeat this: 

The study, by Katherine M. Flegal and her associates at the C.D.C. and the National Institutes of Health, found that all adults categorized as overweight and most of those categorized as obese have a lower mortality risk than so-called normal-weight individuals. If the government were to redefine normal weight as one that doesn’t increase the risk of death, then about 130 million of the 165 million American adults currently categorized as overweight and obese would be re-categorized as normal weight instead.

This is so important. According to this study, I am WELL WITHIN a ‘healthy’ weight range, instead of ‘overweight.’

Of course, I just had a baby, so the numbers on the scale are skewing a bit higher for me lately anyway. Still, my usual ‘comfortable’ weight range is somewhere around 150-160 lbs, which is 5-15 lbs beyond the ‘ideal’ weight for my height (I’m one of those ‘average’ 5’4” women, in fact!). I am far healthier when I am in my comfortable range than when I weight 145 lbs or less!