#Syrian #News #LGBTIQ #diñero

یک مرد ونزوئلایی که از دستگیری مادورو خوشحال بود، گفت:

از شما می‌پرسم:
آن‌هایی که می‌گویند ایالات متحده فقط به نفت ما علاقه‌مند است، فکر می‌کنید روس‌ها و چینی‌ها اینجا چه می‌خواستند؟ دستور پخت آرپا؟؟! ( یه غذای ونزوئلایی 😭)

╰➤ 𝗙𝗜𝗥𝗦𝗧𝗕𝘂𝘇𝘇

"In a sense, Deleuze and Guattari’s universal history is, as Paul Patton notes, remarkable for ‘its abstraction and its anti-historicism’. The social machines are general types rather than representations of any particular society, and their relationship to one another is non-evolutionary and allows for their mutual co-existence within a single social formation. Yet Deleuze and Guattari’s presentation of the social machine does suggest the existence of an irreversible historical process of accretion whereby the primitive machine is appropriated by the despotic, and the despotic (and possibly residual aspects of the primitive) by the capitalist.
Moreover, this history is informed by a general tendency, albeit a contingent one, toward a concomitant intensification of schizophrenic deterritorialization and paranoiac reterritorialization in social desiring-production. This history not only has a shape, but that shape reinforces the political conclusions that Deleuze and Guattari reach. One can see that for them, any return to the past is a return to domination, any effort to seize state control is an effort to perpetuate despotism, and any political programme for revolution is a blueprint for the molar, paranoiac investment of social desire.
The only means of overcoming the paranoiac impulse is to intensify the schizophrenic tendency of capitalism to the point that the system shatters, and this can only be achieved through the creation of group-subjects that form transverse connections between deterritorialized flows that are no longer subject to the constraints of commodity exchange."
R. Bogue; Deleuze and Guattari

[...] A catcall is entirely about reminding you that you are not yours. The purity myth is entirely about reminding you that you are not yours. The fetishization of female purity in a world where catcalls are an acceptable form of communication telegraphs one thing very clearly:
“Women, stop sexualizing yourselves—that’s our job, and you’re taking all the fun out of it.”
The sexualization of women is only appealing if it’s nonconsensual. Otherwise it’s “sluttiness,” and sluttiness is agency and agency is threatening and so, therefore, sluttiness must equal disposability.
[...]
Fuck women. Fuck men. Fuck no one. Point is, you get to fuck what you like, when you like,
L. West; Female 'Purity' Is Bullshit

You know what? Fuck you. *Televises your revolution.*

"[...] The antipornography movement and its texts have been the most extensive expression of this discourse. In addition, proponents of this viewpoint have condemned virtually every variant of sexual expression as antifeminist.
Within this framework, monogamous lesbianism that occurs within long-term, intimate relationships and does not involve playing with polarized roles has replaced married, procreative heterosexuality at the top of the value hierarchy. Heterosexuality has been demoted to somewhere in the middle. Apart from this change, everything else looks more or less familiar. The lower depths are occupied by the usual groups and behaviors: prostitution, transsexuality, sadomasochism, and cross-generational activities. Most gay male conduct, all casual sex, promiscuity, and lesbian behavior that involve roles or kink or nonmonogamy are also censured. Even sexual fantasy during masturbation is denounced as a phallocentric holdover.

This discourse on sexuality is less a sexology than a demonology. It presents most sexual behavior in the worst possible light. Its denoscriptions of erotic conduct always use the worst available example as if it were representative. It presents the most disgusting pornography, the most exploited forms of prostitution, and the least palatable or most shocking manifestations of sexual variation. This rhetorical tactic consistendy misrepresents human sexuality in all its forms. The picture of human sexuality that emerges from this literature is unremittingly ugly.
In addition, this antiporn rhetoric is a massive exercise in scapegoating. It criticizes nonroutine acts of love rather than routine acts of oppression, exploitation, or violence. This demon sexology directs legitimate anger at women's lack of personal safety against innocent individuals, practices, and communities. Antiporn propaganda often implies that sexism originates within the commercial sex industry and subsequently infects the rest of society. This is sociologically nonsensical. The sex industry is part of a sexist society and refleets the sexism of its culture. The sex industry is hardly a feminist Utopia. We need to analyze and oppose the manifestations of gender inequality specific to the sex industry. But this is not the same as attempting to wipe out commercial sex or blaming it for all the ills that afflict women.

Similarly, erotic minorities such as sadomasochists and transsexuals are as likely to exhibit sexist attitudes or behavior as any other politically random social grouping. But to claim that they are inherendy antifeminist is sheer fantasy. A good deal of current feminist literature attributes the oppression of women to graphic representations of sex, prostitution, sex education, sadomasochism, male homosexuality, and transsexualism. Whatever happened to the family, religion, education, child-rearing practices, the media, the state, psychiatry, job discrimination, and unequal pay?
G. Rubin; Thinking Sex[The Limits of Feminism]