I think there are some really important discussions to have about why disclosing aspects of personal identity can be challenging but important for all kinds of people, why the concept of “coming out” has appealed at times to a wide variety of groups (including people who are poly or kinky, sex workers, people with HIV, atheists, and people with mental illness), and why other groups using that language can be harmful to people in the LGBT and queer communities. But it’s going to take me some time to really be able to address all that.
In the meantime, I also think it’s worthwhile to focus specifically on the coming out experiences of people who are LGBTQIA. Of course, these experiences can vary a lot too. There are some differences between coming out about sexual orientation and coming out about gender identity, for example. And even two people who identify the same way may face pretty different challenges in their individual lives. I do believe, however, that there is a certain commonality shared specifically by these groups.
Adulthood is like the vet, and we’re all dogs that were excited for the car ride until we realized where we’re going.
i know the warden & zev don’t make appearances in da3 but if they did i’d like to think they’d be invited to the orlesian ball
Whether it’s cucumbers splashing into water or models sitting smugly next to a pile of vegetables, it’s tough not to be sucked in by the detox industry. The idea that you can wash away your calorific sins is the perfect antidote to our fast-food lifestyles and alcohol-lubricated social lives. But before you dust off that juicer or take the first tentative steps towards a colonic irrigation clinic, there’s something you should know: detoxing – the idea that you can flush your system of impurities and leave your organs squeaky clean and raring to go – is a scam. It’s a pseudo-medical concept designed to sell you things.
“Let’s be clear,” says Edzard Ernst, emeritus professor of complementary medicine at Exeter University, “there are two types of detox: one is respectable and the other isn’t.” The respectable one, he says, is the medical treatment of people with life-threatening drug addictions. “The other is the word being hijacked by entrepreneurs, quacks and charlatans to sell a bogus treatment that allegedly detoxifies your body of toxins you’re supposed to have accumulated.”
If toxins did build up in a way your body couldn’t excrete, he says, you’d likely be dead or in need of serious medical intervention. “The healthy body has kidneys, a liver, skin, even lungs that are detoxifying as we speak,” he says. “There is no known way – certainly not through detox treatments – to make something that works perfectly well in a healthy body work better.”
#health #scienceThis “detox” thing is also intrinsically connected to ugly social prejudices: associating certain types of food consumption that are only available to privileged individuals with “cleanliness” and morality (and these two things have gone hand-in-hand forever in Western culture - I’m a medievalist, so the first thing that pops into my head is “holy anorexia,” which is an interesting topic if you’re ever interested in reading up on the history of this association) encourages people to see white, thin, economically privileged people as “cleaner” than people of color, fat people, and economically disadvantaged people. Good old racism, classism, sizeism, (and misogyny and ableism, too, when you look at who’s expected to diet and who might not be able to adhere to a particular diet without compromising their health) with a shiny “green” 21st-century label.
reblogging for the mad awesome commentations.
Whether it’s cucumbers splashing into water or models sitting smugly next to a pile of vegetables, it’s tough not to be sucked in by the detox industry. The idea that you can wash away your calorific sins is the perfect antidote to our fast-food lifestyles and alcohol-lubricated social lives. But before you dust off that juicer or take the first tentative steps towards a colonic irrigation clinic, there’s something you should know: detoxing – the idea that you can flush your system of impurities and leave your organs squeaky clean and raring to go – is a scam. It’s a pseudo-medical concept designed to sell you things.
“Let’s be clear,” says Edzard Ernst, emeritus professor of complementary medicine at Exeter University, “there are two types of detox: one is respectable and the other isn’t.” The respectable one, he says, is the medical treatment of people with life-threatening drug addictions. “The other is the word being hijacked by entrepreneurs, quacks and charlatans to sell a bogus treatment that allegedly detoxifies your body of toxins you’re supposed to have accumulated.”
If toxins did build up in a way your body couldn’t excrete, he says, you’d likely be dead or in need of serious medical intervention. “The healthy body has kidneys, a liver, skin, even lungs that are detoxifying as we speak,” he says. “There is no known way – certainly not through detox treatments – to make something that works perfectly well in a healthy body work better.”
This “detox” thing is also intrinsically connected to ugly social prejudices: associating certain types of food consumption that are only available to privileged individuals with “cleanliness” and morality (and these two things have gone hand-in-hand forever in Western culture - I’m a medievalist, so the first thing that pops into my head is “holy anorexia,” which is an interesting topic if you’re ever interested in reading up on the history of this association) encourages people to see white, thin, economically privileged people as “cleaner” than people of color, fat people, and economically disadvantaged people. Good old racism, classism, sizeism, (and misogyny and ableism, too, when you look at who’s expected to diet and who might not be able to adhere to a particular diet without compromising their health) with a shiny “green” 21st-century label.
Recently, I started to deeply contemplate an idea that has flit in and out of mind a handful of times, and the idea has evolved into a theory. The theory feels strongly probable to me, but I haven’t yet decided to view it as truth. I feel like my life experience has been building to this theory for a long time, but I haven’t explored it long enough to make it a part of my worldview.
The theory is this: Asexuals, including aromantics, may be capable of feeling a unique kind of nonsexual/nonromantic love that romantic-sexual people cannot feel.
This nonsexual/nonromantic love is the kind that romantic friendships, passionate friendships, and certain queerplatonic friendships are based on: it’s a love that is far more emotional, profound, intense, and significant than anything that holds together a common friendship, but it is not romantic or sexual and does not seek to culminate in a traditional romantic relationship. It’s a nonsexual/nonromantic love that causes someone to see a special friend as their primary companion, the most important person in their life, or at least equally as important as any romantic partner they might have. It’s a nonsexual/nonromantic love that causes someone to want a lot of physical, even sensual, affection and intimacy with their friend. It’s a kind of nonsexual/nonromantic love that feels completely equal to the kind of romantic-sexual love that’s universal to romantic-sexual people: equal in intensity, equal in depth, equal in its power to compel attention and prioritization and commitment and heavy involvement.
Read more here! ~ Tabs
Recently, I started to deeply contemplate an idea that has flit in and out of mind a handful of times, and the idea has evolved into a theory. The theory feels strongly probable to me, but I haven’t yet decided to view it as truth. I feel like my life experience has been building to this theory for a long time, but I haven’t explored it long enough to make it a part of my worldview.
The theory is this: Asexuals, including aromantics, may be capable of feeling a unique kind of nonsexual/nonromantic love that romantic-sexual people cannot feel.
This nonsexual/nonromantic love is the kind that romantic friendships, passionate friendships, and certain queerplatonic friendships are based on: it’s a love that is far more emotional, profound, intense, and significant than anything that holds together a common friendship, but it is not romantic or sexual and does not seek to culminate in a traditional romantic relationship. It’s a nonsexual/nonromantic love that causes someone to see a special friend as their primary companion, the most important person in their life, or at least equally as important as any romantic partner they might have. It’s a nonsexual/nonromantic love that causes someone to want a lot of physical, even sensual, affection and intimacy with their friend. It’s a kind of nonsexual/nonromantic love that feels completely equal to the kind of romantic-sexual love that’s universal to romantic-sexual people: equal in intensity, equal in depth, equal in its power to compel attention and prioritization and commitment and heavy involvement.
Read more here! ~ Tabs
Another Florida police officer has shot an unarmed African American. This time, the Florida officer shot and critically wounded a 28-year-old man early Monday during an investigation into a stolen car in Orlando.
Orange County Sheriff Jerry Demings had little to say about the case besides this, but witnesses claim that the victim, Cedric Bartee, literally had his hands up, begging Sergeant Robert McCarthy not to shoot.
Bartee had his hands in the air, but in spite of this damning detail, during a press conference Monday, Demings said, “I ask everyone to not rush to judgment and allow the investigation to be completed.”
Demings said that “because of the backdrop of everything happening in the country at this time… It’s concerning to me” how people might react to this shooting of an unarmed African American with his hands literally up in the air when he was shot.
Demings came to the defense of Sergeant McCarthy, saying that he only shot Bartee because he failed to comply with police commands. Apparently, this has now become the criterion for when police can use lethal force, even though it has no legal basis.
(Article by Moreh B.D.K.)
