why did I find a reaction image in the cemetery
this goes sailing through my window after making a bad post
Peter I need your help. Years ago, a post of a painting depicting a well-built, muscular but soft warrior woman in a pond with her armor on the shore near her went around here over and over again. I cannot find that painting, and if you can remember it I'd be eternally grateful.
I can't help with this one, I'm afraid.
The description rang no bells, and I used all sorts of keywords and search terms to look through past posts, back to when my blog began 10 years ago. Still no joy.
I'm posting this as a public rather than private reply in the hope it'll prompt other memories than mine.
no way a radfem poll asking if its fair on her (a woman) to do 100% of the chores and housework in exchange for being fully financially supported by a presumed partner is getting by with a majority saying yes. i know the radfem who posted it isn't talking bout herself despite the phrasing of the question, i'm shocked people following a rf account don't automatically shutter in horror at the thought of being 100% financially dependent on their partner. radtwt is so scary
wait who posted this?
kinda glad it was just posted by a random anonymous twitterer and not some famous radfem/gendercrit but even so...oh andrea, we're really in it now
killing screaming biting the beauty industry
“you should want them when you’re older” is such a sick idea to put in a girl’s head. “sure, you should want them, but only later, when aging suddenly stops being a normal healthy part of life and starts meaning that you’re going to rot on the vine in the eyes of pedophilic ~sexiness~ culture. you know. like when you’re an absolutely ancient gross musty wrinkled sixteen year old.”
there is no winning a fight with linear time. there is no age when it’s healthy to see yourself as past-the-sell-by-date, because you don’t have one at all! break a mans legs with a hammer instead of all of this bs
The white matter of the MS brain shows abnormalities even before inflammation
Patients with MS show structural abnormalities in their white matter even before MS inflammation develops. This is the conclusion of a new study by the Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience (NIN) in Amsterdam and the Max Planck Institute for Multidisciplinary Sciences in Göttingen (MPI). Could this finding be a target for a new treatment to prevent MS inflammation?
Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic inflammatory disease of the central nervous system. In early, as well as advanced progressive MS, lesions arise along with substantial inflammatory activity. Lesions are the inflammatory sites where the myelin is broken down and taken up by microglial cells (our brain’s immune cells). But do we see something in the tissue even before these inflammation spots appear?
To answer this question, Aletta van den Bosch of the research team of Inge Huitinga (NIN) and Wiebke Moebius (MPI) looked into human post-mortem brains of MS patients and controls that have been donated to the Dutch Brain Bank. Their focus was particularly on the so-called ‘normal-appearing white matter’. As the name suggests, these are areas where lesions have not formed yet, and so still appear normal. How is it possible that people with MS develop lesions here later and people without MS do not?
The team took a detailed look at myelin to see if there are early changes in people with MS. Myelin is an insulating white, fatty substance that is wrapped up to 150 times around the nerve fibers. At regular distances from each other there are interruptions of the myelin, these are the Nodes of Ranvier. During the transmission of electrical signals, the signal jumps from one Node or Ranvier to the next, allowing a myelin-containing fiber to transmit a signal 100 times faster than without myelin. In people with MS, myelin is damaged and signal transmission in the central nervous system is disrupted, which can impair functions such as walking and vision. What kinds of changes in brain tissue can we observe in the early stages of MS?
Ultra-strong microscope
Aletta van den Bosch: ‘To be able to study myelin properly, we looked at the optic nerve. In this area, all nerve fibers and their myelin follow the same direction very nicely, so that we can visualize the myelin well. We did this by using electron microscopy. With this technique we zoomed in 5,000 to 30,000 times on a cross-section of a nerve-fiber.’
‘In MS, myelin was found to be less tightly wrapped around the nerve-fiber. This means that the fiber is not properly insulated which has major consequences: the signal can’t be transmitted as fast as it used to be. We saw that where myelin was less attached to the fiber, there was a disruption of the nodes of Ranvier combined with increased levels of T-cells and activated microglia. Furthermore, there were more mitochondria. Mitochondria are the energy factories of the cell, so this phenomenon may indicate that more energy is needed for signal movement and maintenance of the fibers.’
Harmful by-products
‘Although mitochondria are generally good for energy production, they also produce many by-products, such as oxygen radicals. We suspect this to be an amplifying factor for myelin breakdown: the myelin is already in a bad state, more mitochondria develop to provide more energy, which then makes conditions even worse. The theory is that a threshold value is needed to initiate the breakdown. It is also possible that the body recognizes the detached myelin as ‘abnormal’, which could be the start of breakdown by immune cells.’
‘We haven’t been able to look at human tissue in such detail before, meaning that almost all the research so far has been done in laboratory animals. Although this is very valuable research, it could sometimes be more difficult to translate the results directly to humans. This is the first glimpse into what happens at the ultrastructural level in people with MS and what exactly leads to the lesions. You need very good tissue to do this which is why the brain bank is so crucial for our research.”
Future perspective
‘The next step is to see if we can prevent the myelin from winding so loosely around nerve endings. First, we want to experiment in culture dishes to see if we can make the wrapping of myelin stronger. Subsequently, we will have perform tests in laboratory animals, and eventually we will be able to take the step to humans. It would be great if we could find something to prevent myelin detachment. While this will not prevent the damage of the lesions that are already there, it might prevent the development of new lesions. This would provide a whole new target for MS treatment.”
Source: nin.nl
In a statement to The Post, a spokesperson for NBCUniversal claimed the tree work is simply an annual ritual at this time of year. “We understand that the safety tree trimming of the Ficus trees we did on Barham Blvd. has created unintended challenges for demonstrators, that was not our intention. In partnership with licensed arborists, we have pruned these trees annually at this time of year to ensure that the canopies are light ahead of the high wind season,” they wrote. “We support the WGA and SAG’s right to demonstrate and are working to provide some shade coverage. We continue to openly communicate with the labor leaders on-site to work together during this time.”
If those trees were pollarded annually, the cut areas would NOT look like that. There would be big knobs of old growth at the trimming sites. Not seeing any of that here. The way those trees were topped (not pollarded, which is a very careful process that has to begin when the tree is immature) is excellent way to kill them due to loss of hydration, open sites to infection and parasitism during the best time of year for both, lack of nutrition due to so little greenery and new budding growth being left, sunburn and other exposure damage, and a myriad of other possibilities. Plus, if they were topped annually, they would not have the lovely drooping branches seen in the other picture but would have tons of vertical suckers instead.
This is what an annually pollarded mature tree should look like:
If this was done by the city, the public works arborists should be protesting in front of city hall and screaming their heads off right now. I'm not hearing about that, so... Tree law!
The Studios: *speak*
Botanists and other Tree Experts:
Update and confirmation of Imminent Tree Law:
He mentions later in the thread that not only do they not trim the trees annually, they’re trimmed at best once every 18 years. Supposed to be every five, and only in dormancy, which even my layman’s ass knows about tree trimming.
And yes, Universal can probably eat the fine. But it’s gonna be a whopper even if the trees survive (which is as mentioned kinda unlikely), California is a triple damage state for tree law, and it may increase dramatically if there were nesting birds in the trees.
All this to be a Captain Planet filler villain to some writers. And yes, it’s currently just the writers officially picketing there; SAG-AFTRA recommended against it for petty bullshit like this and the suddenly necessary sidewalk construction.
maybe reblog this or something so they can see and its an actual good sample of general opinion?
because i hate it. too much going on. not good for desktop users, and i cant fucking see my dash. i also saw another post that says that this is literally just like Instagram and all other social media sites so if they are trying to be unique then it isn't working.
i at least want a way to go back to regular tumblr.
Some thoughts on attraction
I often see the suggestion that “lesbians/gay men should analyze their aversion to penises/vaginas”. Now, I am a straight woman (and conveniently never told to analyze that) so maybe this is different for gay people. But here is my experience with attraction to men.
I do not have an aversion to vaginas. I am not repulsed by them, I do not recoil from female bodies. I have one myself after all, so they don’t disgust me. But I also have no interest in them. My attraction to mens bodies is active, whereas my feelings toward womens bodies are neutral.
I often find women beautiful. But in the same way that I find sunsets, or flowers, or exotic birds beautiful. I don’t mean to compare women to objects or animals, but my point is many things in life are aesthetically pleasing. And without having to explain that women are, of course, worth more than their beauty, there is no denying the fact that some women are beautiful, and I can recognize that.
With men, however, it is different. When I see a man that I feel attraction towards, it doesn’t feel like just looking at something beautiful. I want to engage with men I find attractive, romantically and sexually. I WANT to. It’s not about what I could realistically tolerate. I actually have sexual urges when it comes to men.
I could, for example, probably tolerate sex with a woman. The key word is tolerate. I can’t say for sure that it would traumatize me. But WHY should I? What benefit would I have in doing something that doesn’t interest me, doesn’t exite me and doesn’t give me any sort of valuable, life saving resource? What would be the point? If I neither want it nor need it, why should I have it? If neither me nor anyone else will be hurt by it, why? Tell me why I should examine, analyse and expand something that really, truly, does not matter to anyone but myself.
Now, like I mentioned, I am a heterosexual woman. I have never been specifically asked to analyse why I don’t feel attraction to the same sex outside of vauge posts that go “it is wrong to only be interested in one kind of genitals” (which technically applies to me as well, but we all know they mean gay people) but I see it all the time with mostly lesbians.
They are asked, nay, ordered, to think about why they love women only. They are told they can overcome their aversion to penis with therapy and love. And here is the part where I want to tread carefully, as I would never dream of trying to speak for lesbian women.
Many lesbian friends in real life and mutuals on tumblr say they hate dick. They find it disgusting, revolting, they wouldn’t touch it with a ten foot pole. I believe them. Who am I to tell them what they think about the opposite sex. But what it all comes down to for me is this:
If there is a lesbian, or a few, who, like me, have no aversion to any specific genitals. They are neutral. Penis doesn’t interest them, but doesn’t offend them either. But what she is is attracted to female bodies, including vaginas. There is nothing wrong with that. But according to genderists, everything is wrong with that. Women need reasons why they DON’T want men. No one cares that what they DO want, is women.
This is where Trans Rights Activism becomes so sinister to me. By pushing this rhetoric that lesbians should learn to take dick (but never trans lesbians) they prove that they don’t think womens attraction is real. They think women wanting to have sex with women is because they don’t want to have sex with men. It’s like they see it a some sort of spiteful act against them, when in reality, men never enter the picture. Ask yourself, if a man has sex with a woman, is it to spite other men? He hates men and wants some sort of revenge on them? No. A man is allowed attraction to women. He doesn’t need a reason for NOT wanting to have sex with men. We understand that he WANTS. But women don’t want. Women are for men to want. They don’t need desires of their own.
With this mindset it’s not hard to understand why straight male people are offended and confused by female homosexuality. She doesn’t just stop at not having sex with men, she actively sleeps with other women, who also do not stop at just ignoring men. Since women have no desire of their own in their mind, it must have something to do with men, right?
You may ask yourself what this has to do with Trans Rights Activism, so lend me your ear: By telling lesbians they can learn to tolerate dick, you are telling them that what they want does not matter. You focus on them overcoming what they don’t want, and you never give them the option of having desire.
Lesbians WANT women. Weather or not they’re disgusted by male bodies doesn’t matter. It isn’t about if they have trauma or any other “excuse” to avoid male genitals, it’s about what they want. I wouldn’t have sex with a woman. Not because I hate them, or find them disgusting, or ugly, or repulsive. I just don’t want to. No one questions that. So why aren’t lesbians (and many times gay men) given that freedom? The freedom to desire, without it having to do with hate for anything else.
I think we all know why.
In responses like this one, it’s clear that some people missed the entire point of this post. As OP very eloquently already explained, sex is not about what can be tolerated, it is about what is wanted. Sure you can have pleasure without involving genitals, or restrict yourself to never having sex at all, but why on earth would you? I can theoretically tolerate never exercising again or only ever doing yoga but I’m not going to, because I love weightlifting and its an activity I deliberately seek out because it excites me and brings joy. I’m not going to date somebody who asks me to give up those things because we would be simply incompatible. Come down out of this fantasy land in the clouds where “Oh what if you just fall so deep in love with a trans person, wouldn’t you give up your active sexual desire for vagina to be with them! Wouldn’t you??!” Is a reasonable idea. No I wouldn’t, next question.
The notes and comments are fuuuuuuuuull of gaslighting of women of how “there is no difference in the mindset between a woman and a TW” (?!?) or in “physical appearance other than genitals” (?!?) and hence that being attracted to women is “reducing women to their genitals” (?!?) and… I’m so tired.
Because TRAs keep accusing women of doing what they themselves are doing. Women are not body parts that you purchase at your surgeon’s.
We are human beings whose biology is organised in a way in which its internal or external body parts are geared to favour production of given gametes and to make us survive.
Sexism is when people treat a given (female) biology as inferior or use it to justify limiting a woman’s possibility to reach her full potential, deny her agency, minimise her basic human aspects such as desire or attraction.
The cotton ceiling idea is one of the most blatant illustrations of that complete misogyny, complete dehumanisation of women.
Instructing women to grit their teeth and take it is peak rape culture. To not consider their own sexual desires but to ✨reframe their sexuality✨ (hello conversion therapy) in a way which would, once again, benefit human beings with a male biology. Aka men.
No matter how much you twist it and turn it, once again, it is about exerting supremacy of male bodies over female ones and dismissing women’s choices when it comes to their sexual agency.
It’s misogyny and homophobia through and through.
Tumblr is chock-full of people who have never had sex and that’s why they make these dumbfuck arguments about sex not involving genitalia.
I don’t know why these porn addicted virgins think they have any say in people’s sex lives but I think we should all get more comfortable telling them to shut the fuck up and sit the fuck down.
nate and stewy are so pathetic when it comes to the roy sibs and then you have gerri
