meal ideas!

low energy ("do not ask me to do any prep work at all, so help me god")

medium energy ("I'll boil water but don't ask me to chop shit")

high energy ("I don't mind chopping some things up!")

other tips:

(thoroughly impacted "okay")

You post this without a video. 

you POST this without.a.video

YOU POST THIS WITHOUT A VIDEO

@that-house this has your vibes

Oh to be excavator operator taking an aircraft for one last ride while probably doing plane noises

There are at least three possible interpretations for "Kai su, teknon," aka "Et tu, Brute?" or "You too, child," and all of them are great:

(From Kathryn Tempest, Brutus: The Noble Conspirator, chapter 4)

Slalom (1986)

(Rare - NES)

BRB legally changing my name.

She is

so I am paying $10 to make you look at her :3

im in love with this gif. everyone here looks like they belong in a gay bar

This is why I write.

Unmute !

IT IS VITALLY IMPORTANT THAT YOU UNMUTE!!!!

NYUM NYUM NYUM NYUM NYUM NYUM NYUM NYUM

At least once a month someone will write “anarchism isn’t about no hierarchies, anarchism is about no UNJUST hierarchies” and will then name the most extremely fucked up hierarchy as their example of a ‘just’ hierarchy.

Like, no, comrade, the doctor-patient relationship is NOT a just hierarchy. The power that doctors have to not just give advice but to decide for us which care we get and which care we don’t get is deeply fucked up. Speak to a woman and you will get on average like 4 stories about medical abuse by sexist doctors who didn’t want to google ‘endometriosis’. Then speak to trans people. Then speak to fat people. Then speak to people of color. Then speak to a disabled person. I promise you will be horrified by what marginalized people endure under the doctor-patient hierarchy. Our bodies should definitely be ours to control.

Yeah this!

I don’t know where this weird ‘no unjust hierarchies’ mantra comes from but it sure as hell isn’t anarchist to me. Like, a core part of anarchism is the knowledge that the existence of hierarchy creates the injustice.

Part of me worries that this is mainly pushed by people who don’t want to question their own hierarchical power. They want to be a teacher with power over students without questioning their own ability to abuse power and how having someone in power impacts the dynamics of everything that happens. They want to be a parent with power over children without questioning their own ability to abuse power and how having someone in power impacts the dynamics of everything that happens. They want to be president/chair/head of their organization, they want to be a doctor or therapist or social worker with power over others… 

Having a job or role under capitalism often involved having power and being trained to see that power as normal or even necessary, and so it’s tempting to try to justify that, to think “Well, this is a just hierarchy and I am rightly at the top of it” but that’s how we become capable of rationalizing our oppression of others.

All hierarchy is unjust, but not all power is hierarchical. Hierarchy is too rigid to allow for the ending of the power dynamic if consent is withdrawn. I think what people are trying to get at when they say no unjust hierarchy is that some power must be exchanged at times in order to function as a society, it’s just the formalization of that exchange of power that allows for abuse.

So what kind of power would you say must be exchanged?

Like, I can think of a few kinds of power that would be difficult to get rid of, but most of them also allow for abuse and abuse is often the result:

For me, the simplest way I can include all the exchanges of power that will always need to happen is a deferral to people with more expertise in a given subject. And yes, under an anarchist system of running things, I would imagine all of these power exchanges to be very temporary and informal, with the ability to withdraw the consent to be led at any time. All of your examples are pretty spot on, and I think a lot of the risk of abuse in those examples can be mitigated by spreading the power around to multiple people. It’s hard to abuse a baby if you have someone else around looking after the baby, too.

But babies are a bit of a special case being unable to articulate their own desires and discomforts the way an adult can. For adults, as long as an exchange of power is temporary and freely given by the one giving up decision making power, as in “for this one task, I’ll defer to your expertise in the subject” and as long as the one giving up power can withdraw consent, I believe that can work within an anarchist model.

I think what’s making the conversation less clear here is that when you talk about ‘deferral to people with more expertise in a given subject’ you seem to be simultaneously talking about ‘voluntarily following the advice of people who know more than you on a subject because it makes sense to do that’ (=not a power relationship) on the one hand and ‘having to follow the advice of people who know more than you because they control the resources or can decide consequences for you if you don’t’ (= power) on the other hand.

We’ve grown up in a society that puts everything in hierarchies and gives power to people with expertise simply because they have expertise and in a lot of cases we should rethink that.

Like, an example: if a doctor can give me advice on which medications I should take but I can decide what I actually take and I do not need a prescription to access it, the doctor had no significant power over my body. If the doctor can grant me access to medications and take it away, the doctor has profound power over my body. I would argue that the situation in which I can make all the decisions is the desirable one in this case because bodily autonomy is extremely important and the impact of being denied medication by a doctor are huge.

In situations that do not involve the question of bodily autonomy that might not always be the case. For example, if I share my building with other people or my building is close to other buildings, I should probably not have unlimited power to experiment with explosives or DIY all my electricity without any expertise, because that is highly unsafe for not just me but everyone else.

As a community we can set fire safety standards and then establish experienced people with the ‘authority’ to decide which buildings are safe enough. In a non-punishment system those people would have very limited powers, such as ‘report at the community meeting which buildings are not safe enough’, but they would have something that amounts to power and we would need to put in place systems to prevent abuse of that power.

So I should have unlimited power over what medications go into my body, but not over what explosives go under my kitchen sink in the house that I share with others, even though other people have more expertise than my on both biology and demolition. It’s not really about my expertise but about what is at stake. In one example my bodily autonomy is far more important than anything else, in the other example my autonomy to tinker with explosives is less important than my neighbors need to be relatively safe.

hitting you hitting you hitting you hitting you hi-

Please have the sound on for the end!

"A favorite section was the arrival of the 'mail man,' which always triggered intense barking and ferocious 'attacks' from the pups."

This is so cute omg

@commodore-64 This is a display at the Leather Archives and Museum in Chicago! This was not my first time there, but between this visit and the last they've really expanded their display on pups. It's a very wholesome and interactive place--that particular room had chalk and encouraged visitors to draw on the walls, hence the cute little nude figure in the picture.

They even had some gear to try on in that room!

They also have a library with tables full of sketchbooks and coloring pages.

Even the bathrooms were a joy. Here we have a poll which granted a landslide victory to bush--the pussy not the president.

At the gift shop they were selling vintage comics, porn and erotica. I think that selection was temporary, but I was able to pick up a book of comics that includes Tumblr's darling, Gerard Donelan! Also this little plush piggy.

And someone at the front desk was able to tell me all about a leather bar in my hometown that closed before my time. The museum and archives have a star-studded board, including Billy Lane, the first openly trans International Mr Leather contestant, and Gayle Rubin, an acclaimed pro-sex feminist scholar and activist. Both have displays about them. This place has workshops, film screenings, classes... I could just go on and on. If you're ever in Chicago, visit this place, the 64Ten shop and Jackhammer in the same neighborhood.

Anyway, thanks for asking!

destroy the idea that dick size denotes dominance or submission. girl with a big dick can be a submissive little bitch for a butch's 1 inch tdick. she can hump his leg with her soft or hard subby cock while she sucks his cock like the good slut she is until his precum and her drool are dripping down her chin. she can beg him to keep frotting his throbbing tcock against her needy dick and to let her cum all over her own tummy. he can destroy her prostate with a 3 inch silicone cock too. (shallow penetration is best for reaching the prostate anyways!) girls w big dicks can be submissive cocksluts for small tdicks and other small dicks. you don't need a small dick/clit to be submissive, and you don't need a big dick to be dominant. transmascs w big dicks can be submissive too and girls w small dicks can be dominant! i speak the truth and everyone especially in trans spaces should remember it!!! (ofc there's absolutely nothing wrong with enjoying content related to doms w big dicks or subs w small dicks, but remember that nothing about bodies inherently makes anyone more dominant or submissive, just as it doesn't make anyone a certain gender!)

d-trans, orientation pl-y blogs, other bioessentialism kinks, cis men DNI i will hunt you for sport

tuesday morning

#YOUNG MAN! THERE’S NO NEED TO FEEL DOWN#I SAID YOUNG MAN#YOU’RE A CAT WHO IS ROUND ( x )

I’m glad someone else said it