I know I'm gonna ruffle a lot of feathers when I say this, but I think this is something people don't really touch on when it comes to the topic of female modesty (at least not too often).
A big criticism I have when it comes to the topic of female modesty (especially in some ‘Christian’ spaces) is that most who speak on it often approach it from the lens of “Immodesty makes men lust.” And regardless of how true that is, lots of women roll their eyes when they hear it because lots of us have experienced harassment (and a lot of women even sexual abuse) from men REGARDLESS of WHAT we are wearing.
Whether or not the message of “dress this way and men won’t harass you” was your personal intention or not, that is unfortunately the message that has been pushed on a LOT of women from the time we could first walk by OTHER people.
Sure, clothes have an effect on how people perceive us, I’m not gonna pretend it doesn’t. You obviously can’t walk into your office job wearing a low cut halter top and booty shorts—you have to dress for the environment you’re in (durr).
But clothes definitely have not stopped people from doing what they want to do to us at the end of the day. I think the main reason why lots of women roll their eyes when the topic of modesty comes up is because we’re being told the solution to a problem that we know for a fact has not actually worked.
If people kept telling you that wearing a helmet prevents serial killers from targeting you, but serial killers kept targeting you anyway, would you be more convinced to wear a helmet? No, because wearing a helmet didn’t change anything.
Lots of women realize this reality and so I think that’s why a lot of women dress with the mindset of “I’m gonna wear whatever the heck I want because it clearly doesn’t matter what I wear or don’t wear—men are still gonna behave the same.”
I’ve gotten harassed by a male ‘friend’ who bullied me in highschool and snuck around to obtain my phone number (without my permission) so that way he could flirt with me despite me telling him to stop (pretty tame all things considered). And all throughout high school, I wore nothing except big hoodies, jeans, and sometimes sweatpants.
Modesty is important, I agree. But stop promising women that it provides GRAND changes in how men will treat them. So many women have experience that proves it really doesn’t. Because it’s not about the clothes and never will be about the clothes, it’s about the character of the men we interact with. So if the only way a man can respect a woman is if she covers herself head to toe like a box, I don’t know if I can consider him a respectable person.
Sure, modesty can help people respect you more---but stop telling women that it ELIMINATES mistreatment from men---because it doesn't. And to tell something that isn't true is a lie.
Nah, it's fine. We all get upset. Hope you have a better week :)
Does anyone ever learn something new that makes them despair for the human race? Like, I just came to a horrible realization and I’m actually shaking right now with grief and anger.
My goodness, I despise this guy so much I had to make a part two-
If you want the context, you’ll have to read part one because there ain’t no way in HECK I’m repeating myself when I already said everything else.
And once again, I don’t care that this guy has a truckload of simps—I’m gonna beef with this guy till the planet’s gone. And if you read part one, you'd know exactly why even if I do end up being wrong on the 2nd part of this take SPECIFICALLY. I do not care how bonito this man looks, he's major CACA.
Going back to addressing the next point, here’s something I gotta ask y’all:
Don’t you find it weird? Don’t you find it odd? Don’t you find it PECULIAR even... How the one guy constantly going on about the ‘traditional Spider-Man” Is FAR from BEING the traditional Spider-Man concept?
Look, I am perfectly willing to accept that maybe (just MAYBE) there’s some lore I’m missing here (as I really hope and wish I'm wrong about this as stated in part one), but you can not tell me that he’s a traditional Spider-Man.
First and foremost, the guy has a different hand gesture for even shooting out his webs. He doesn't shoot them in the way Peter traditionally shoots them---no. He shoots them FROM THE UPPER TOP OF HIS WRIST.
And on top of that, the guy didn't even get bit by a spider. HE HAS POWERS BECAUSE HE INJECTS HIMSELF WITH A SERUM! The guy has FANGS that secrete POISON for crying out loud. Which, granted, is pretty cool, but not a 'traditional' Spider-Man.
What other Spider hero within the Spiderverse do you know ALSO acts like a freaking animal after taking their super-meds? NONE---that's some Bane from DC bullcrap.
Even in the gif provided, the guy doesn't look like he's sticking to walls---he looks like he's CLAWING into it in order to stay on it.
He. Doesn't. Even. Have. Spider Sense.
Yep, that's right. The one guy who's hell-bent on the concept of the canon Spider-Man, doesn't even have the STAPLE of the classic Spider-Man powers. Instead he just has 'enhanced eyesight.' Miss me with that bull---
Let's not even get down to the fact that this guy was able to actually have a wife and a kid at some point. That's WAY more than Peter Parker's ever been able to get throughout MOST of his traditional iterations (considering that for some reason it's a canon event for his uncle and/or girlfriend to LITERALLY keep on DYING).
Sure, you could argue that the colors of his Spidey-suit (blue and red) are reflective of the traditional Spider-Man concept, but even then, they're inverted where BLUE is his main color INSTEAD of red.
I have no problem with the fact he strays out of a 'traditional' Spider-Man archetype. My problem is that he fact he strays out of it but then has the NERVE to aggressively police everyone else on standards that he HIMSELF could/can not uphold.
This is why I am so proud of Miles for looking at this man straight in the face and saying, "Are you sure you're even Spider-Man?" Because there ain't no way in DOOKIE that THIS guy---who's so far from the traditional Spider-Man archetype, is the one who's the most obsessed with it.
There's no other way around it for me, this man is a cult leader and that's it.
So I have something I want to say, and I think it's something both pro-life and pro-choice people can and should agree on.
It's this: Women deserve better than abortion.
Now stay with me, please. There is this charity that I love, called Let Them Live, and they open their doors and fundraisers to moms in need, raising enough money and giving them all the support they require to confidently choose life. And that's beautiful -- I think people on both sides can agree on that.
The thing is, the stories these moms in need tell strike stunningly similar notes, over and over again.
"I don't want to abort my baby, but I'm so scared of being homeless."
"I would never choose abortion, but my life is too unstable/dangerous because of an abusive partner to choose life."
"I want to keep my baby, but no one in my family is supporting me."
"It breaks my heart to abort, but my partner/family is pressuring me into it."
"I'm scared."
"I'm alone."
"I'm unsafe."
"I'm jobless."
"I'm about to be evicted."
Doesn't it break your heart? What happened to the world that we now look at these women in dire straits, who often have children already and say, "The answer is abortion." Over and over, these women are told by society, by family members, by partners, and by friends that the answer to their problems is to deny every maternal instinct and subject themselves to a dangerous medical procedure that snuffs out the small life growing inside them.
Is this really what the pro-choice side is fighting for? I have spoken to many pro choice people in my time... They hold their beliefs because they see abortion as crucial to women's rights, to feminism, and to female safety. But is it really? Does it empower women at all when we tell them that to be free and on an equal level with men they have to get an abortion -- an invasive and potentially life threatening procedure? Does it keep them safe when abortions are continually used to destroy the evidence of rape, of incest, and of forced prostitution? When abortion itself can be and has been lethal? When the battle for abortion rights contributes to the misconception that abortion is ever necessary to save a pregnant woman's life, to the point where doctors become negligent? Does it further feminism to elevate the rights of one group of people (women) over the rights of another (unborn girls and boys) and create another kind of oppression? I don't think it does. When I look at the stories of the women who come to Let Them Live, desperate and alone, I become more convinced than ever that abortion hurts. It does not help.
The pro-life side often focuses on the unborn's right to life -- as they should! They fight their battles with biological facts about conception and gestation. They bring truth to the table by describing the reality of abortion procedures and laying out statistics regarding abortion that put a lie to many of the common arguments for it. And that is good.
But I think we need to emphasize another facet of the argument.
Abortion is stupid.
Abortion is a stupid, violent solution to a systemic problem. Ask yourselves this: when did we get so lazy and so disconnected from our communities that the main solution to a desperate or frightened mother's unplanned pregnancy was to abandon her to an abortion clinic? To a cold room, to forceps that rip her baby apart, to saline injections that poison her baby, to pills that starve her baby.
Abortion doesn't solve poverty.
Abortion doesn't stop abuse.
Abortion doesn't heal trauma.
Abortion doesn't make society and careers more hospitable to mothers.
Abortion doesn't stop misogyny.
Abortion doesn't prevent rape.
Abortion doesn't spread love.
For many of this things, abortion actually perpetuates them.
We spend so much time as a culture fighting over abortion! One side (rightly) hates it, and the other upholds it as the salvation of women.
And while this disagreement spins on, moms are hurt. Abuse is covered up. Poverty is rampant. Little girls have their innocence stolen. Instead of a culture of life, there is a culture of death.
Abortion is stupid. It is lazy. It is a symptom of the problem; not the solution to it. It gives people an excuse to blame women for their struggles, rather than helping them. Rather than gathering these women into the arms of a community and promising that, yes, of course we will help, abortion lets us believe that the best help we can give is making them an appointment and driving them to an abortion clinic. Don't tell me that doesn't happen. We all know it does.
Do all people refuse to help? Of course not! Pro life and pro choice individuals alike reach out to these women, and that is wonderful. We need more of that.
But society as a whole? It still calls for death. It empowers the strong, not the vulnerable. Imagine a world without abortion gumming up the works, where communities surrounded mothers who needed help. Where workplaces gave adequate maternity leave and better maternal health insurance. Where abortion could no longer serve as an excuse for the people who will abuse their power or make lazy policy decisions.
Companies like Disney will pay for an abortion, but will they shell out the considerably larger amount of money necessary for proper maternity leave and for adequate health insurance? Of course not! Not when they have an easier, cheaper option. Abortion gives them that option. Abortion gives fathers a way to avoid paying child support and taking responsibility. Abortion gives abusers a way to hide. Abortion gives pimps a way to maximize their profits. Abortion gives society yet another way to shuffle mothers aside and disrespect all that they do.
So. Is abortion helpful? Is it feministic? No. We can do better. We have to do better, for the sake of the thousands upon thousands of moms who need our help.
Abortion is stupid. It's a bad solution. Come on, everyone. We're smarter than this.
SpideyMoon/MoonSpider is not a pairing I would've thought of but somehow I could see it working.
"omg spideypool!" "aww spideytorch" "venom is literally a crazy ex gf"
"moonie"
Hey sorry for the horrible anons, have a kitten in your profile!
Glad to meet another Pro-lifer :D
Oh, I like you. This is purrfect.
Disney: Stop focusing on this dumb movie about a Hedgehog! Our Mufasa deserves that Oscar! The academy clearly thinks so as well! C'mon, watch our movie! Sonic fans: Ey, y'all hear something? Sonic 3: Nah, I can't hear anything over the sound of you guys throwing me your money.
I think people struggle to understand that not ALL villains are misunderstood—they’re choosing to be evil and that's it.
Take Killmonger for example (I’m doing the MCU specifically because I haven’t read the comics—cry about it).
Besides committing the atrocity of making those half dreads the Frank’s Red Hot for every media with black characters lately, there's aspects I don’t hear people touch on when it comes to Killmonger as a character. And if there are, I sure haven’t heard it yet---so I really hope there's some info on this man I'm missing here. But if no one's gonna call out this man’s BS, I will.
I definitely comprehend that Erik losing his dad was extremely traumatic for him to experience as a child. But Killmonger was only focused on revenge and power alone. Because of the fact that T’Chaka was dead, Erik couldn’t take it out on him and instead decided to channel his anger towards the entirety of the Wakandan royalty—even towards T’CHALLA (even though T’Challa had NOTHING to do with it).
Even then, T’Challa was MORE than kind enough to let Erik see a Wakandan sunset BEFORE he died.
“I’m sorry my father was a POS. Here’s a sunset, bro.”
I get he's played by the oh-so handsome Michael B. Jordan, but let's remove the rose-colored lenses and consider something here.
On top of being a complete narcissist (who killed his GIRLFRIEND by the way), the guy also was just never EVER fit to hold power in ANY capacity to begin with. When the guy did kill (or believe he killed) T’Challa, what was the first thing he wanted to do?
Did he try to help other poor children in the neighborhood he grew up in?
Did he make a memorial for his dead father?
Did he start a program for fatherless children (like HE was)?
Did he even TRY to do ANYTHING of value that would’ve been beneficial to others in ANY way shape or form?
Newsflash: The answer to all of that is NO.
The FIRST thing this man does as KING is start a WAR between Wakanda and the United States.
Literally his FIRST act as king is to begin an event that could very well have left so many of his people to DIE and cause mass amounts of generational trauma. Meaning there'd potentially be a bunch of children in Wakanda that ALSO won't have their fathers should they die in the war. Is that NOT a major red flag?
The guy didn’t even DRESS like a king, he just walked around shirtless with a jacket like he was an NYC pimp.
Even pre-kingship, he already killed LOADS of people before he got to that point. Sure, you could argue that it was in order for him to reach Wakanda or what he planned to do. But does that not raise MORE red flags about his original intent, then?
Killmonger has a scar on his body for every person that he’s ever killed. The man’s torso is covered top to bottom in scars, meaning he has a major body count. So you’re telling me that this dude's okay with murdering innocent people just to get to a goal that was gonna lead him to kill more people ANYWAY?
Yes, I understand his trauma. Yes, I understand why he's angry at the world. Yes, I do think he's a great villain because every good story needs a good villain. But one thing I'll NOT do is act like this man's actions are justified when they're not. His conquest to create conflict highlights a SEVERE lack of genuine care for the very people he CLAIMS to wanna help.
He's a grown man who had every chance and choice to become better and he never took it because he chose to take his anger out on everyone else since the one who ACTUALLY committed sin against him had already DIED.
And when the “What If” series came out, Killmonger turned on EVERYONE he worked with, took the gauntlets for himself, and tried to reset reality.
Sure, you could say that Killmonger is a representation of black rage and on some level, I'd agree with you in terms of a story telling perspective. But storytelling dynamics don't change the fact this man is a piece of crap.
Don't EVEN try lying to me. The only reason this man has simps on Tumblr is because he's played by someone who's attractive. I bet if he was played by Steve Harvey, you'd all change your tune.
Trauma never is/will be an excuse to do horrible stuff. Once again, trauma can make a good villain and good villains are necessary. My ONLY issue with Killmonger is that he has a railroad of fans that try to justify his actions.
It's one thing to like a horrible character. And it's another thing to say a horrible character is justified in what they do. The reason why I think it's so dangerous to do that is because it CAN (not that it always does, but CAN) translate into real life instances where people defend ACTUAL human-shaped monsters for things they do as well (ie they're traumatized and/or attractive). That's why we have hybristophilic fangirls slobbering over Wade Wilson (if you know, you know).
But at the end of the day, everyone has choices. Killmonger made his.
Even Killmonger's FATHER was saddened by what his son became while speaking to him on the ancestral plane.
N’Jobu: No tears for me? Killmonger: Everyone dies. It's just life around here. N’Jobu: Well, look at what I have done.
DAWG, WHAT MORE PROOF DO YOU NEED—
Listen, I'll definitely make a post about how crappy a love interest Insomniac's version of MJ is for Peter Parker (and when made, I'll link it in THIS post). But there ain't no way in dog drool I am EVER going to say that Black Cat is better love interest for him. If anything, a part of me would like to argue she's a bit worse.
"Oh, I only like her/ship them as a joke---" Congratulations, you can leave the post because I'm obviously not talking about you :)
Maybe I'm off my rocker, but what about this DC Catwoman copycat screams wifey-material to you guys? Felicia has manipulated, lied to, and used Peter for her own advantage time after time with seemingly no remorse. And even if she supposedly did for one millisecond, she sure as heck doesn't atone for it. And even when she apologized for tricking him into helping her, it sure sounded un-genuine.
Whether she truly had a son or not (though considering Felicia's history of being a pathological liar, I wouldn't put it past her), she used that narrative to trick Peter into a sense of false security, only to then trap him in a room after she got what she wanted.
And let's say that Felicia having a son WAS true. Guess what? THAT'S EVEN WORSE!
Because NOW instead of it just being a slimy scheme to get him vulnerable, she's lying to him by omission. Regardless of what her so-called intentions could be, she's still manipulating him which is an absolute no-bueno for ANY type of relationship (romantic or not).
You guys seriously need to stop glossing over how flawed these characters are just because you're attracted to them.
Y'all will complain up and down about how Peter's constantly broke but then want him to hook up with a chick that'd just steal his money without a blink? Make it make sense.
Once again, MJ is DEFINITELY not a good girlfriend for him either, but are we really going to pick a literal criminal as a love interest JUST because she's pretty?
“Oh, but Felicia has a similar lifestyle to Spider-Man!” Uh…no the freak she does NOT.
Spider-Man fights crime. Felicia COMMITS crimes.
Do they have chemistry? Yes, way more than an actual chemistry lab. But Felicia would absolutely NOT be a good long-term partner for Peter—he deserves way better than her.
At this point, if Peter having a love interest MUST (utterly MUST) be a prerequisite, I'd genuinely prefer he at least (at the freaking LEAST) get with Sable or Watanabe (before she became Wraith, that is—don’t even get me started on that mess) because at least those two try to have SOME (not good but some) sense of decent morality.
“Oh but look at her, she's bad–” You don't need to project the fact you're a masochist on everyone else.
If you're the kinda person who likes being manipulated and taken advantage of by people you find hot, that's your problem you need to get fixed in therapy.
But here's what annoys me the most about this whole thing: I know for a FACT that if MJ was the more attractive one and that FELICIA was mid-looking, you guys would then be SCREAMING for her to be with Peter instead of Felicia.
Really think about it. Without Felicia's looks, what kind of person is she? Is she really someone worth being with? Don't worry, I have the answer: NO-
Felicia is in NO way a better love interest for Peter and I'm tired of people acting like she is just because she looks like an Instagram cosplayer.
“Felicia's always been this way in the comics and stuff—”
As if that makes it any better. If anything, all that's doing is giving me MORE proof as to why she's not a good person for him WHATSOEVER.
If the genders were reversed, you'd all be grossed out by Felicia, let's not even lie. If Felicia was a guy doing all of this to a female version of Peter, you'd all be calling him a creep and trying to cancel him on Twitter -_-
I love this image so much
🐠🖥️
I hate how it's always a 'young woman who took advantage of a 60 year old for her position' and not 'a 60 year old man who only promoted women who were willing to give him sexual favors.'
The bags under my eyes are Gucci. Feel free to simply call me Ben or Bennie.Unapologetically pro-life, plus a superhero and anime fanatic.Have a good day :)Current Age: 20
73 posts