Everyone should watch Monthly Girls’ Nozaki-kun.

It is very good.

2 notes

terpsikeraunos:

does anyone else not care about the oxford comma?

3 notes

I know language changes over time but the idea that bi people aren’t included in the category “gay” is genuinely upsetting to me.

1 note

I identify as more of a tubular feminist.

Brb plotting out barbarian chick story. Sorry.

5 notes

10 Times When Comics And Movies Sexualized Male Superheroes

potofsoup:

septembriseur:

barbeauxbot:

kierongillen:

2) Requisite linking to Dave Willis’ Sexy Batman comic

I think it’s too easy in sexualization and objectification discussions to equate nakedness with objectification — it seems like such an easy metric!  If the discussion moves past that, then it’s usually about the “sexiness” of the pose.

But the bigger issues are actually:

1) Who the sexiness is for.  Yes, there are examples of sexy, vulnerable men, but usually they’re sexy and vulnerable for their own sake.  The audience is encouraged to sympathize with them, to care about them and their character development.  Whereas sexualized females are there for the audience or for the male protagonist.  That vulnerable girl in the back?  We not supposed to care about her internal life, her character development.  Her vulnerability is solely designed to titillate/please *us*, the audience.  This is why spandex is magically tighter and thinner on women than on men.  (There’s plenty of shots of Spiderman with his crotch towards the audience, but how often do we see the outline of his penis lovingly shaded?  His butt deliciously shrink-wrapped?  His nipples carefully highlighted?  All his poses are about ACTION — what *he’s* doing to advance *his* story.)

Just as a casual illustration: here’s a quick doodle of a pretty naked Winter Soldier Bucky being vulnerable for himself, and another of him clothed, but being vulnerable *for me* (mwahaha).  HMMM WONDER WHICH ONE IS MORE OBJECTIFYING?


2) The fact that it’s societal.  I tried to think of sexy women “come hither” and “I’m available” and “I’m yours” poses, and at least 20 immediately come to mind.  Because women are posed like that ALL THE TIME.  When I tried to think of sexy men “come hither”, “I’m available” and “I’m yours” poses, however, I came up with … 5.  And 3 of them are from gay/yaoi stuff where the guy is posed “like a girl”.  Too often, portrayal of male sexiness is portrayal of *their* power as centers of their stories, when in fact Fandom loves our crying, vulnerable boys.    Relatedly, there are very few images where men are just sexy background decoration, where the attention is *not* on them as people but only as scenery.  Does anyone ever say “oh dear, I need something to fill this bottom left corner … I know!  I’ll throw some half-naked guys in there!”   Then why does it happen all the time for women?

This is part of a longer conversation about sexiness and objectification and vulnerability, but I am mainly reblogging for:

* “vulnerable for himself” Bucky is so hot.

* I would read a comic about barbarian axe chick.

alisonisthegreateststar:

If you wanna be my lover…

….you gotta be prepared for my hour-long rants about fictional female characters and why they are so important.

(via ursulavernon)

randomlyneko:

feminally:

grrspit:

sciencetoastudent:

thepageofhopes:

signifi-cunt:

liberalsarecool:

One of the reasons your tuition is high and classes are getting cut.

ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME

fact checked and…apparently this is completely correct.

And people wonder and complain when I am “down” on sports.

Does this include adjuncts? Because they don’t make any more than grad students and are teaching most of your classes.

Happy labor day, kids.Hope you’re not starting your freshman year at rip-off U.

When I say “There are some things about sports worth getting mad about,” this is the kind of thing I mean. People wanting to enjoy a football game? Not my thing, but please go right on ahead. Just don’t extort money that could be used to help people who actually need it.

The claim — and I’m not going to vouch for this or anything — is that college sports bring in more money in merchandise and alumni donations than they cost. If that’s the case, the choice not to have a football team is, in fact, the fiscally irresponsible one (although for some schools, not having a big-name team is a point of pride.)
My hunch, though, is that this is only true at the big, famous programs, and that almost all schools are losing money on their sports teams.
Edit: I looked it up: the top 10% of school athletic departments make money. The rest do not. This depends a lot on the winning record of the team: i.e. college football, from a cash perspective, is effectively a lottery ticket.
I think that there’s absolutely a place for student-athletes and teaching athleticism as well as other university subjects. But it seems to me like it’s hard to justify lavish expenses if they’re not bringing in money for the school.

randomlyneko:

feminally:

grrspit:

sciencetoastudent:

thepageofhopes:

signifi-cunt:

liberalsarecool:

One of the reasons your tuition is high and classes are getting cut.

ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME

fact checked and…apparently this is completely correct.

And people wonder and complain when I am “down” on sports.

Does this include adjuncts? Because they don’t make any more than grad students and are teaching most of your classes.

Happy labor day, kids.
Hope you’re not starting your freshman year at rip-off U.

When I say “There are some things about sports worth getting mad about,” this is the kind of thing I mean. People wanting to enjoy a football game? Not my thing, but please go right on ahead. Just don’t extort money that could be used to help people who actually need it.

The claim — and I’m not going to vouch for this or anything — is that college sports bring in more money in merchandise and alumni donations than they cost. If that’s the case, the choice not to have a football team is, in fact, the fiscally irresponsible one (although for some schools, not having a big-name team is a point of pride.)

My hunch, though, is that this is only true at the big, famous programs, and that almost all schools are losing money on their sports teams.

Edit: I looked it up: the top 10% of school athletic departments make money. The rest do not. This depends a lot on the winning record of the team: i.e. college football, from a cash perspective, is effectively a lottery ticket.

I think that there’s absolutely a place for student-athletes and teaching athleticism as well as other university subjects. But it seems to me like it’s hard to justify lavish expenses if they’re not bringing in money for the school.

Look I know that the West has never gotten over its failure to establish a strong dynastic cycle but that really doesn’t mean Rome is magically superior to all other empires.

10 notes

Jung talks about how you can only really hate your own self.

I’m not sure that’s actually true but, man, sometimes it really is true.