Author: peasantchick

shadowthephoenix:

every time I see a post that’s addressing lesbians who have little to no experience with women, it’s always like, ‘it’s okay to have not kissed a girl at 16 or 18 or even 21!!!!’ and I know tumblr skews toward younger people, but it still feels like a harsh reminder that I’m years behind, even by other lesbians’ standards.

it’s totally normal and okay to not have experience with women at any age. it’s okay if you have never been with a woman and you’re 30 or 50 or 70 or even older. it’s okay if you didn’t come out until after you married a man or had children with him. it’s okay if you didn’t even realize you were gay until 25 or 45 or older.

you’re still a ‘real’ lesbian if you didn’t realize you were gay, or if you have a long history of dating men, or if you’ve never slept with a woman. 

and no matter how old you are, you still have time. you have time to find a girlfriend or wife. you have time to make memories with a woman. you have time to fall in love.

kat-von-delts:

kat-von-delts:

I vow to never be the “cool girl” by prioritizing men.
I vow to never be the “chill girl” by laughing at or tolerating misogynistic language or sentiment.
I vow to never be the “real girl” by crafting an attitude of disdain for other women.

I vow to always be a woman for other women.

📢📢📢 radfems reblogging this are skipping my third point 📢📢📢

aro-allo-positivity:

  • you are not at fault for being aromantic
  • if your partner feels hurt because youre not romantically interested in them
  • its not your fault
  • they may try to blame you for it
  • saying you lead them on
  • but its not your fault
  • them catching feelings doesnt make you the villain in this story

nonbinarypastels:

this is your reminder that you’re allowed to create new words for your gender identity.

if none of the existing terms out there feel like a good fit, for whatever reason, you’re allowed to create a new word that does. this is true even if there are existing terms that come close to matching what you feel but aren’t quite right and it’s true even if there are terms that match what you feel exactly but you just don’t like the term itself and want something different.

there is nothing inherently awful about creating new words for gender identities. it doesn’t make you a “special snowflake” or a “faker” or mean anything else negative about you or your identity. you don’t need some kind of special permission to do it. you don’t even need a tale of woe and angst about why you’re doing it. you don’t have to justify it, like you’re trying to explain why it’s okay, to anyone.

clitcheese:

there is no middle ground that i can see. if just believing people about their own sexualities and identities is problematic to you, then you are supporting medical gatekeeping, you are agreeing with the straight and cis people who deny each of our identities regularly. if you don’t support medical gatekeeping, then believing people’s self-reported identities is your only option.

you can not pick which identities are real and which should be subject to medical scrutiny and examination. you do not have that right. you either believe us or abuse us.

impuretale:

jas720:

sunbeargirl:

crotchetybushtit:

maatuultulivesi:

does no one realize that robin hood was a terrible role model for young kids? i mean you are stealing from people (illegal) and those people (usually) worked hard to get their wealth. it really demotivates people to succeed when they know they can get something someone else worked for.

is this what rich people worry about lmao

who knew the sheriff of nottingham had a blog

How does someone read Robin Hood and miss the part where it’s set in feudal England. He stole from people who got their wealth by exploiting the poor, incidentally that’s all rich people to this very day.

Tune in next week when they tell you the story of Ebeneezer Scrooge, a benevolent job creator, harassed during his sleeping hours by the hellish socialist dead.