A thing about my counselor that I really dislike is that she expects kinda textbook sexual child abuse reactions from me. Like, I must have had terrible grades in school and not fit in well. No, in fact, for most of my life I haven’t been aware of what happened and I was trying to please my neglecting mother in order to get attention from her, like make her proud of me, so I was actually a grade A student up till I finished school (and also because we moved when she left my dad and I was mobbed for being the “new kid” for 4 years straight, I wanted to kick them in the butt by getting the best grades, too, and I succeded  almost 100% of the times).

The sad thing is, it actually worked. She praised me for grades, but everything else I did was always wrong. Why did I like to draw? I ought to go out play with friends (that I didn’t have), I needed to be more girl like (be my sister, like soap operas, listen to ‘girly’ music, like boys, wear skirts, behave ‘properly’), should do more kitchen work (that she never taught me how to do at that time). Man how can you expect a 9 year old to know how the world functions when you never cared to show them? That’s incredible egoistic and rude.

Just when I started my apprenticeship and I had been through lots of abusive relationship shit, I started getting depressed, dropped to a grade E student and found that grades didn’t matter at all, I had to come to terms with my mom not liking me at all after I didn’t have good grades anymore and I started to hate school and grades in general since you can’t buy love with it and it doesn’t heal you from depression and self-hate either, or from the still growing hate for all of the world.

Really, if life was textbook, I’d be done with all that shit already.

Francione points to five essential characteristics that define new welfarists.

First, new welfarists reject the instrumentalism of nonhumans as mere means to human ends; some new welfarists espouse the complete abolition of animal exploitation as an end, while others will tolerate exploitation if it is not based on arbitrary characteristics, such as species.

Second, new welfarists generally believe that animal rights theory cannot provide a practical and pragmacic framework for suscained activism and the long-term goal of the abolition of animal exploitation. By arguing that we must scale back our demands the “dismantlement” movement, Marcus argues this point, and Wise also argues the same with his “realizable minimum.”

Third, because new welfarists reject the notion that animal rights theory can sustain activism,
they pursue campaigns and strategies that end up being identical or nearly identical to the campaigns and strategies of traditional welfarist organizations.

Fourth, welfarists view regulatory measures as necessary and desirable steps on the way to a full recognition of animal rights, even if these reforms reinforce human dominance over animals. Moreover, most supporters see a causal relation beeween the means of these reforms and the end of the abolition of animal exploitation, despite any clear path between the two.

Fifth, new welfarists see no inconsistency in their supporting measures that reify human dominance over animals, while calling for the end of that dominance.

The roots of this confusion within the animal protection movement stem from the movement’s reliance on the philosophy of Peter Singer, a utilitarian who explicitly rejects rights for animals (and rights more generally), and who also does not explicictly reject animal exploitation in all cases. Indeed, Singer has even justified animal experimentation at Oxford, and while he has since back-tracked, there is little denying that the fundamental philosophical position of utilitarianism does not explicitly prohibit a justification for vivisection or other forms of exploitation.

Moreover, new weifarism emerges out of the political-economic considerations of a movement that is dominated by large organizations staffed by professional activists with high salaries. The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), for example, paid its president and CEO, Wayne Pacelle, just over US$203,OOO in 2005, and held total net assets of over US$200 million. Generating income to sustain salaries such as these requires substantial public donations, and the draw for these donations
can be found in clearly articulated, winnable campaigns that garner the organization attention.

As a result, Marcus and his new welfarist allies end up supporting measures that do little to either challenge the status of animals as property and commodities, or explicitly call into question human hierarchy over animals. If we are serious about challenging the exploitation of animals, our activism must strike at these roots, eliminating the property status of animals, and their subsequent commodification. Their status as property is not a trivial, abstract, or minor point, as some new welfariscs like to claim.

As I argued in the previous chapter, property as leveraged in animal industries represents stored up suffering, as well as stored up capital; at an economic level, the relations of property are systemically essential for the continuation of animal agriculture and other exploitative industries. Moreover, as Francione argues, our holding animals as property means that our interests will always outweigh theirs, even in the most minor of conflicts.

For these reasons, the status of animals as property and commodities must be challenged if we are going to overcome the systematic abuses of animals by human hands. Any other activism that trades against a
challenge to the property status of animals essentially accepts that condition and does nothing to attack what is the lifeblood of the animal exploitation industry. It is important to note that the industry will
fight but can tolerate regulation if it must; it can always find newer ways (that have more appeal to consumers) to produce, slaughter, and market meat and other animal products, or to produce profit with
thinner and thinner margins and more regulations. Capitalism itself is almost infinitely flexible, and has historically proven itself quite adept at adapting to changes in the productive landscape, including challenges for reform (many of which have been successfully undermined by capital interests).

Commodity production agriculture is similarly flexible, and has wintered many social, economic, and technological changes in the productive landscape, particularly over the last halfcentury. There is no doubt thac it will continue to weather those challenges and changes by adapting its business model appropriately. However, if animal exploitative industries lose the ability to commodify animals and treat them as property, the very lifeblood of the industry will have been drained. There is no adapting, no changing, and no continuing if production agriculture is unable to treat animals as property-
period. Most mainstream activists who take up the banner of new welfarism (even if they call it something else) seem to ignore this fundamental issue in their activism. They trade off a real recognition of animal interests for campaigns that bring in money to maintain the organizations themselves.

[…] Of capitalism,Bookchin wrote that persuading a green plant to stop photosynthesizing was probably an easier task than to get capitalism to dexist from accumulation. We could say the same of animal industries and the commodification of animals. While we may be able to make that commodification “nicer” through “compassionate” or “happy” meat, or measures like eliminating gestation crates, commodification will never simply fade away on its own, as it is the foundational logic of the system itself. Provided it can continue to commodify animals as property, the system will adapt, even to the most stringent regulations.
What’s more, if those regulations become too enerous domestically, it seems likely that the industry will simply increase the already substantial offshore production taking place to skirt around these domestic regulations. For these reasons, our activism must fight the system at its roots, targeting property and the imposition of the commodity form on animals, rather than hoping that an ethically bankrupt system will do the impossible task of reforming itself given demands to do so. Indeed, “reforms” help the exploiters of animals to exploit more efficiently, or more profitably, without seriously impacting the commodity relation that undergirds the system itself.

[…] As long as animal rights activists are stuck on pursuing an agenda to reform the worst practices of animal agriculture, they will remalll little more than consultants. It is an industry that will likely accept their demands in some measure, provided they either make for a good marketing opportunity or stall the actual abolition of animal property and animal exploitation. Worse still, organizations that engage in this kind of activism are profiting from it, and maintaining their bureaucracies on the backs of the “humanely raised” animals they care so much for. This makes them a party to the animal suffering they are supposedly agaInst.

Making a Killing - Bob Torres
tagged: #personal #abuse tw

you know the funny thing about a neglecting mother is that when you are young and need guidance, no one is there to help you and you grow up feeling the whole world is against you and that you can only trust yourself.

and when you finally reach the stage where you want to express all the feelings you held inside, and try to distance yourself from most of the people, especially those who’ve continuely hurt you over the years, then she steps in putting her foot down and demand you act as a “normal” and “sane” person.

She’s got it exactly the wrong way around. She never taught me normal and sane, so don’t expect me to feel comfortable being “normal”.

No, in fact, the time I was “normal” and didn’t distance myself from most people was when I was caught in abusive relationships and needed to hide that I was especially vulnerable then because as I said before, the whole world was my enemy.

Nothing about that is healthy. Absolutely nothing.

Neglet is abuse, no questions asked.

A wrench in the mental machinery of carnism, veganism has perhaps its greatest impact as a form of inducing cognitive dissonance. As I pointed out erlier, many people don’t want to know about the origins of their food; veganism gets people to think. Carol Adams has referred to this function of veganism as the “absent referent:” namely, that vegans effectively “stand in” for the animal at a table where people are eating animal flesh. It reminds people that they are consuming a someone rather than a something, and it roots the violence done for the dinner plate in a very real and personal context. Because food is more than simple- sustenance, because food cuts across our cultures, our emotions, and our lives in complex ways, the symbolic import of being the “absent referent” shouldn’t be underestimated-the presence can cut deeper than we initially imagine. By being that referent, by taking a stand, and by denying the produces of violence and exploitation that others are engaging in, the vegan asks others to consider their choices, even if the vegan does not actually say anything. Veganism rejects the speciesist idea that animals are ours to use for food, clothing, and other ends.
Veganism, then, is a daily, lived expression of ethical commitment and of protest. In this sense, if one is a committed :ani-speciesist, one is living the revolution one wants to see. While it may be easy to dismiss veganism as unnecessary because an individual vegan may not make much of an economic impact on the massive animal exploitation industries, to do so marginalizes other kinds of changes that people make in their lives to match their ethical and emotional commitments.
When the topic comes up, students and friends of mine often insist that they are sympathetic to veganism and the concerns of animals, but them changing won’t make much of a difference, and so they won’t bother. Few of these people would apply this logic to other issues …

Though it is sad to say so, we will likely not eradicate racism or sexism in my lifetime. They are entrenched in our cultures and economies, and very much a pan of capitalism- and always have been. Yet, many of us who are concerned about these forms of domination do not live actively as racists or sexists just because racism or sexism are too deeply entrenched in our cultures and are otherwise intractably difficult to challenge. I may not be able to make racism or sexism disappear tomorrow, but that does not mean that, say, furthering racist stereotypes, or living to recreate patriarchy makes sense. In both cases, though I recognize the problems as intractable, difficult, and entrenched. I also believe that, in my everyday life, I have to begin to live the kind of world I want to see.

Making a Killing - Bob Torres





you see these binders? They may not look much, but these fucking things bind like the CHAINS OF HELL THEMSELVES. I’ve got HUGE tits, up in the DD range, but this simple little binder works some goddamn MAGIC on them. It’s comfortable, it binds, it provides perfect support and whatever the hell else. 

These are perfect for both trans* and crossplay-related purposes! What’s the catch though, right? They’re probably super expensive?


i use this binder and as a trans boy i can say first hand that they work really well and i would highly recommend them if you are short on cash and need a good binder. i’m about a D cup and these make me look virtually flat.

Signal boost!

Anonymous whispered: You can deny it all you want, but anti-promiscuity is a part of straight edge. No matter what you say, you can't take those words out of the song that started it all.








If you are that passionate and dedicated to your opinion, why be anonymous? Be proud of what you think. Also, Ian MacKaye can suck a dick. He is nobody. But, here is what a real man thinks of you and your opinion.



"You can’t take those words out of the song that started it all"

This is my favorite quip towards the promiscuous sex vs straightedge argument.

Maybe you should go listen to the song. Ian never mentions sex in “Straight Edge”. Additionally, he never mentions straight edge in “Out of Step”, which has the line you’re thinking of:
"(i) don’t smoke, I don’t drink, I don’t fuck, at least i can fucking think"

I was about to say the exact same thing!
If you don’t want to have sex, don’t have sex.
If you want to have sex with a different person every night, then do it.
But that isn’t anyone else’s fucking business, and it sure as shit doesn’t have anything to do with your X’s,
Get that psuedo-Hardline bullshit out of here.

Uhm hello, am I the only one who notices that according to this song sfx is essentially ableist?????


Isnt that short for straight edge? If not, i dont care.

I’ve never seen a more openly hostile and misogynistic community in my entire life.

It’s SXE.
And what the fuck are you talking about?

Listen, when your reaction to calling out bullshit inside a comm you’re part of is “what the fuck are you talking about” as if I was the first to call out their misogyny it just shows that you are oblivious and also want to be oblivious to the problems.

I have little energy to go into detail about their shit when you enter the discussion this way. But here I’ll open your eyes anyway:

-when the first reaction I get is “no you can’t join my white boys club” from a xvx dude when I show interested in what xvx is about since I didn’t like alc and drugs and -at that time- have never done any of them (which means, 23 years of my life), it just screams misogyny because I have literally met the standards needed to “join” before I even knew what it was about.

-further if they also say I need to listen to hardcore in order to join and when I check out some bands they tell me ~I’m just trying to copy him~, that also screams of misogyny because I can never like something for the sake of liking it and not to please some dude or wanting to be like that dude, obviously.

And yes, I know, xvx =/= hardcore but you still have these fuckstains to clean out of your underwear so don’t give me any of that “no true scotsman” fallacy bullshit to explain them away.

-collect your trash, xvx/sxe comm, cause if a lot of the time I see tattooed xvx/sxe dudes commenting on women with tattoos as ~show offs who need to seek attention~, and get encouraged by many of their comm  you fail to aknowledge that this is misogyny as well.

-also if I had to personally met someone who turned out to be a CONVICTED RAPIST (and I’ve read his case file online), but the only people who kicked him out of their community were animal rights activists, not sxe or xvx community members, I’m sorry I don’t see how your comm is not misoginistic.

-plus he was backed up by xvx/sex women who internalized his misogyny, too. his best friend was a xvx women who swore on her life he’d never dare lay a hand on HER so he can’t be a rapist. misogyny? rape culture?

Yeah, what the fuck am I talking about.



saying you’re mixed then listing off european countries is the equivalent of getting white paint from home depot and white paint from lowes, dumping both into the same container, then claiming it’s a different color



Anonymous whispered: Don't you miss real food though


"Real food"?image

the fuck are you talking about, “real food”…

OHHHH, I get it, vegan food isn’t “real food”!image

here I am just eating imaginary food for the past year…


look at all this imaginary food, here let me just have some imaginary bananas


wait fuck


where did my fOOD GO


shit shit shit, if my FOOD was imaginary, that must mean VEGANS…





Slurs are violent. They enact violence. They bring up violence. Slurs are used to dehumanize people, against their will.