*smacks You Over The Head With A Poorly Put-together History Textbook I Made In Crafts* LEARN BISEXUAL

*smacks you over the head with a poorly put-together history textbook I made in crafts* LEARN BISEXUAL HISTORY BEFORE YOU ACT KNOWLEDGABLE

“Bisexual—being emotionally and physically attracted to all genders.” - GLSEN in fucking 1998

“Do not assume that bisexuality is binary or duogamous in nature [...] In fact, don’t assume that there are only two genders.” 1990 Bi Manifesto

“But there are also many bis, such as myself, for whom gender has no place in the list of things that attract them to a person.“ 2002

“Bisexual people are those for whom gender is not the first criteria in determining attraction.” 2003

“Assuming that all bisexuals are never attracted to trans or genderqueer folk is harmful, not only to bi individuals, but to trans and genderqueer individuals who choose to label themselves as bi.”

“Bisexual: A person who is attracted to people regardless of gender (a person does not have to have a relationship to be bisexual!)” 2003

“These data support the argument that, for some bisexual individuals, sexual attraction is not gender-linked.” 1992

girls learn to watch themselves in third person so they can constantly fix their laugh and smile and hair and dancing and speech in hopes they can transform into a different person that someone will love and girls fear that if anyone sees them in their most candid self then they will be deemed unlovable and I’m so exhausted from practicing my smile in the mirror but girls also know that the ability to be loved is synonymous with their worth

for a group of people who are supposedly attracted to women, straight men sound like they never looked at a woman

what a lovely day to remember that aces didn’t exist until like 20 years ago and aren’t inherently lgbt+

I just want to say that I remember when the first allegations of R.Kelly having sexually abusive relationships with young women came out and hordes of you came out to defend him in the name of BDSM and kink shaming only to find out that he’s actually been horrifically sexually abusing them as was stated all along. And this is what happens when you don’t think critically about what is sexually permissible and dig into what healthy sexual dynamics look like; you end up creating a safe space for abusers and look like a fool on the back end.

“Societal Stockholm Syndrome theory explains women’s love of men as a form of bonding to an abuser, made possible in part by the mental-emotional operation of splitting. Because women’s terror of male violence is so great and male kindnesses are so small by comparison, women engage in the psychic defense of splitting. Splitting means that one cannot simultaneously see both the good and the bad in another person or persons. Applied to male-female relations, splitting means that women see men as either all good or all bad, or that we see men as good and women as bad. As used here, splitting also refers to women’s denial of men’s violence and to our exaggerated perceptions of men’s kindnesses. Splitting thus works to keep women’s perceptions of the terrorizing side of men from overwhelming our perceptions of men’s kind side and destroying women’s hope for survival. A result of this splitting is that women separate men into two classes, the predators (rapists, wife beaters, incest perpetrators) and the protectors. This compartmentalizing leaves women unable to recognize the ways in which all men are kind to women (in some ways) while also promoting and benefiting from their aggression against women. All women seem to engage in such splitting to one extent or another. Regarding antifeminists, Rowland (1984) comments: “There are … two groups of men: decent, loving husbands and fathers, and those unmarried, childless and irresponsible men.” The husband who rapes and batters his wife and the father who sexually abuses his children are not recognized; nor is the kind, responsible bachelor. Any husband or father is, by definition, regarded as good; any bachelor as untrustworthy. While Rowland (1986) found feminists to “loathe … the violence and cruelty of men, … antifeminists seem either to ignore this [violence and cruelty], or [to] believe it only exists in the ‘odd’ case.” Having split apart the terrorizing and kind sides of men so that the hope created by male kindness is not overwhelmed by fear, and having denied the terrorizing side of men, women bond to the kind side of men. After all, why wouldn’t a person bond to another person whom she saw as kind and whose threats of violence and actual violence she had denied? The result is that women “fall in love” with our oppressors even as we fear them. For instance, antifeminist women report that men are untrustworthy and are users of women, but they say they like men and find their husbands “wonderful” and “loving” (Rowland 1984). Women may “fall in love” with men because of our need to believe that the terror will end, that we can “tame” or “control” our terrorizers so that they will protect and nurture us (e.g., see Schlafly 1977). Splitting is manifested on a cultural level through societal demands that women love men no matter what they do to us and that women devalue women no matter how good we are. Dr. Edna Rawlings and I have asked students in our classes to describe characteristics of people whom they’ve heard called “man-haters” and “woman-haters.” A man hater is a woman who speaks her own mind, a feminist, or a lesbian: in other words, a woman who has her own voice and doesn’t put men first is a man-hater. By contrast, students are unable to recall any situations in which they have heard someone being called a woman-hater. We ask, “Are rapists and wife batterers woman-haters?” They answer, “Just because a man rapes or batters women doesn’t mean he hates women.” The differential definitions ascribed to terms that should have equivalent meanings suggest an enormous collective need both to deny male hatred of women and to derogate independent female action (which might be used to expose expressions of that male hatred).”

— Loving to Survive by Dee L.R. Graham