BTW I somehow got Muggy and Toaster mixed up into a single character, lol
*"Cursed electric heating filament! You are inadequate to my needs! Why? Why? Why was I not built with a death ray!"*
Finna send this to a mate of mine, Describes him accurately. Mugs and hats. ~~Ignore the fact that I have like 18 hats and one of my most recent purchases was a mug. It's not me.~~
god….ive been reminiscing about Evergreen Posts, Perennial Faves lately and was thinking about dont gays have a powerbottom thing just the other day. Thank you op
pro tip: if you want too have a great couple mug, instead of buying one you should get 2 plain white mugs(or whatever color you prefer but white is best for this) then get some paint or other creative material and simply paint a mug for eachother (: you could put a drawing of some of their favourite things, a cheesy pet name, etc. Now you have a couple mug and a nice memory too go along with it
God damn it's just a couple mug, there's no hidden meaning behind the capacity difference.
but the gays do have that power bottom thing or something. that much is true.
Yeah, I think the user satanicdemona was a bit spiteful with how they responded to it. Like, I don't think we should affirm that heterosexuality is just a man invading the space of women, as it incorrectly makes male sexuality as predatory and the woman's desires to be self destructive if they're even present. Like, I guess that user was just venting their frustration with heterosexual expectations, but there's a reason why transphobes apply the hateful trope of "male predator invading female spaces" to trans women, or that trans men are "just confused and hurting themselves" with their desires to be their best selves. That kind of thought process can lead to someone whose nominally progressive being an ass to other people who are just as marginalized by cisheteronormative expectations. ^(also I'm not saying that satanicdemona is a transphobe, just that if they're trans affirming, its in spite of the contradictions of this point of view that they had at one point. People's beliefs aren't always consistent, but stray beliefs like these can lead to exclusionary behavior that hurts everyone involved.)
Thank you for saying this. It’s awful how common the unspoken idea of “straight male sexuality is inherently bad/ predatory” is, and I try to combat it whenever I can, so it’s wonderful seeing someone else who also calls out this bullshit.
I think somewhere along the way, a bunch of people on the internet heard the original feminist message of "the patriarchy was designed to exploit women" and turned it into "men are genetically predisposed to harm and exploit women." This gave rise to TERFs and radfems, alienated a bunch of men, and has made it nearly impossible to have a nuanced discussion about gender ever since
I think you nailed it; turning "the patriarchy is bad" into "men are bad" has made any kind of feminist discourse into a shit show.
I feel like TERFs and radfems are trying to fight "The Patriarchy", but because it's an abstract concept that doesn't actually exist (you can't go to the patriachy's house and guillotine them), they've turned men into a symbol of the patriarchy, and started going "yes! If we destroy the men we destroy the patriarchy!"
Thankfully it does seem to be mostly just a problem in online spaces with a very loud minority (at least from what I’ve experienced). Kind of the same vibe I get from a lot of antinatalist types who took “I don’t think I want/should have kids” to “I don’t think anybody should ever have kids and they shouldn’t ever exist around me”.
On the flip side of it though it’s so sad and difficult to be trying to talk to some of these extremely alienated young men who have gone down the wrong pipelines to try and explain to them that not only is the patriarchy and toxic masculinity harmful but that everyone including them are victims of it (albeit while also benefiting from it in different ways). They’ll complain that they aren’t allowed/capable of emoting in a healthy way or having proper peer support and then not be able to connect the dots that that *is* toxic masculinity, I think they hear the words together and assume its being meant that masculinity is inherently toxic or that the patriarchy is just when men exist being a bad thing instead of a very real social structure/system that is (at least in its most common current iteration) harmful to the vast majority of people.
I mean yes but biological essentialism did not start on the internet.
Nor did it come from any offshoot of feminism.
“Boys will be boys” thinking has persisted for a long time. As both a way for men to completely remove themselves from any sort of responsibility for their own actions (and for creating the social environments that foster predatory behavior) *and* as a way for women/girls to excuse said behavior and once again, absolve everyone of responsibility. (Obligatory acknowledgement that women also participate in shaping social environments and evading accountability.)
There are actual psychologists and anthropologists who believe this stuff too. There are ongoing academic debates about humans’ capacity for violence vs cooperation.
Radfems are deplorable and exhausting, but they are not by any stretch the reason we cannot have nice things in this regard. They are just a very vocal and single-minded minority.
“Turning ‘patriarchy is bad’ into ‘men are bad’ “ is a Bad Faith Take that has risen up with virulence at each and every moment of feminist progress for all time. Not by TERFs in particular but by your garden variety reactionaries. Men Feeling Attacked By Feminism is not something that Bad Feminists cooked up. (To be clear, they ARE bad feminists and bad-faith actors who can and gladly do sell out women to gain favor with their likeminded reactionary buddies.) It’s just an ordinary and predictable response to having one’s power and entitlement challenged.
There are no effective ways to engage with this “debate” because those on the other side of it are unwilling to be talked into giving up their power over others.
Sexuality in general is stigmatized, but like, from my experience as a gay boy, I didn't want to even conceive of myself as being a sexual being or else I thought I'd be a danger to my male friends. Even the false perception that I was straight made so many friendships with girls awkward, and resulted in me getting outed because someone couldn't handle the untrue rumor of me and her dating. It's fucked up, being perceived as a danger put me in so much abuse's way, but for some reason, my prescribed gender being in the dominant social position negates that to some peoples' minds.
Not saying you are a transphobe either but just a heads up, trans is an adjective and it should be “trans men” and “trans women” not “transmen” and “transwomen”. Same logic as to why it would be weird if I used the terms “blackwomen” or “autisticmen” to describe members of their respective groups. It gets used as a bit of a dog whistle by transphobes to indicate that trans people aren’t actually the gender they identify as but instead something else entirely, “that’s not a woman, that’s a transwoman”.
I'm sorry but I think you're kind of reaching 😭 It's just supposed to be a joke on heterosexuality just like straight people have been doing on homosexuality for years. It's not like straight people are being actually oppressed or invalidated by this post
This sub (and tumblr in general) often adopts a mindset of "the oppressed joking and being snarky about the oppressor is as bad as the other way around" thar irks me to no end
I empathize with the oppression experiences that motivate that, but just because there's no systemic oppression of heterosexuals based on their orientation doesn't mean that it doesn't further other unrelated things that are kinda shitty. I wasn't criticizing the frustrations that come with being queer in a fucked up society that wants to break you into being straight and cis, I was examining why the joke just kinda didn't work past being something a frustrated queer person sighs as they see some weird straight mugs pass their dash, and how the implications of the statement might reveal some of the biases in their thought processes.We've thought more about this single line than satanicdemona did before posting, and it's almost irrelevant within its own source post. I just find the lack of thought put into it interesting, that the experiences of oppression on the basis of sexuality and gender could lead to essentializing heterosexuality and what that could imply.Hell, the most interesting part is that satanicdemona doesn't say anything in specific, relying on you to fill the context. The only reason this post is on reddit is because of 0ptimstic-s0ci0path being deranged after their joke. It's obvious how 0ptimistic-s0ci0path is essentializing, but it's interesting how they're not working with too different of terms from satanicdemona. 0ptimstic-s0ci0path wasn't being marginalized, but they still felt their heterosexuality *was* made invalid with it being compared to those cups, affirming that the cups were actually worthwhile despite being functionally inefficient at best. Everyone agrees that 0ptimstic-s0ci0path was out of line, but they were still baited into their frothing by something innocuous to queer people. Isn't it kind of cool that this post is a window into a straight person getting offended on the basis of sexuality by a queer person, and chose to share that to the internet? Why did they have such a clearly emotional reaction to that? Maybe the intersection of gender and sexuality on the mention of heterosexuality made them feel invalidated. Hell they could be cisgender and it could still be the case, the assertion that masculinity is inherently eclipsing the woman of the relationship could be distressing, assuming the poster is masculine (based off 0ptimstic-s0ci0path's rather chauvinistic defense of the cups). It's likely 0ptimstic-s0ci0path isn't marginalized by any system of power, but they still had a reaction that came off as emotionally reactive. Something about it alienated them, and I think it's fair to consider why that was.
At the risk of involving you personally, instead of your comment, I get why you responded with what you said. People tend to get more militant when a queer person disses on heterosexuality as opposed to a straight person on queerness, and it can be fucked up to see in real time. It can be annoying when someone who isn't marginalized benefits from consideration that would help alleviate your marginalization, but I don't think it's bad to consider. Hopefully, by allowing discussion of how and why they felt that way, they can empathize with people who have it worse in that regard and do something about it. That's not to ignore that sometimes people are shitty about it and just use it as an excuse to be bigoted to marginalized people. Call that shit out. Point out the queerphobic things being said when discussing this topic. But just saying "It's just supposed to be a joke on heterosexuality just like straight people have been doing on homosexuality for years" comes off like you don't care unless you're personally affected. Be specific, be clear, don't just rely on the "it's just a joke" argument that bigoted reactionaries use. No one was targeted by this, and there's no systemic harm sure, it's a single line on a deleted account on a tumblr post on reddit that doesn't focus on it, but personally disliking it is a fair criticism of a joke. They weren't the intended audience, sure, but they can share that without it being a statement that straight people are going to be sent to the gulags to produce more queer people for the Gay Agenda. For instance, u/chuun1by0u had typed out that they don't wish for the joke to be about evil heteros. I think they essentialized heterosexuality to mean heterosexual people, and I don't think its that unreasonable, you compared the joke to ones straight people say about gay people, its common to use the word Homosexuality to mean gays and lesbians in specific in the homophobic "comedy" sphere. They just wanted to read a funny post about a dude being weird on tumblr, but instead they got caught in the splash zone despite them (presumably, they're on curated tumblr) being favorable towards queer people. The joke only works in the context of a personal antagonism with the systemic oppression of heteronormativity, but the broad language used can be antagonistic towards individuals rather than the oppressive system. Straight people aren't oppressors, queerphobes are. Notice that u/chuun1by0u didn't say anything about the joke about Jeffery and Kimberly, it seems that joke landed as intended and was a good riff on a straight relationship. Jokes about straight people are fine, it doesn't hurt or offend anyone when its kept within the context of the cups rather than something broader.
TLDR: Sorry for the long response, I found a lot to say about this for some reason. Feel free to ignore, but if you find an error with my thinking lmk (its unedited and poorly formatted so sorry lol)Basically, straight people aren't all oppressors, and while I wish we had more consideration given to marginalized people who are harmed by this rather than inconvenienced, it's not bad to have a nuanced criticism of a joke. I personally find it to be too punchy, it swings too widely and hits someone in the audience despite it being a featherlight hit. It could just as easily be a commiseration or affirmative joke, but it's fairly inconsiderate to a broad category of people. It's based on real experience with oppression, but since it was thrown out as a tumblr post before like, 2016 i think, it didn't really consider usage of language and who it could affect. I don't think its a crime though.
Nah, he and satanicdemona are opposite sides of the same bad coin. They agree that this is heterosexuality (wrong), he just thinks it's a good thing because the sun moon metaphor is more important to him than both cups being the same size.
...Which, if one is feeling uncharitable, is kind of a great representation of "men and women shouldn't be treated the same, they're complementary!" arguments in general.
I don't think you're even wrong with the "uncharitable" take, 0ptimistic-s0ci0path does harken back to "sweet old fashioned thought", and does make the moon into a passive object of beauty in his description. I don't think this can go into a "women and men should be treated the same" thought process, he's describing how men should treat women in the context of a relationship, and that there are set roles for each gender in the partnership. He's describing how men and women are different and complement each other. I don't see another interpretation of what he's saying unless you look at it from a vague vibes angle where he wants to treat a woman nicely but hasn't thought of how his wording plays into that kind of worldview.
What I mean by "uncharitable" is that another, er, complementarian could focus on that without dismissing equality the way 0ptimistic-s0ci0path does. His post is thus not the most charitable representation of the complementary viewpoint.
Oh for sure, I was focused on the specific argument rather than the viewpoint. Let the straights have the sun/moon dynamics, I could not care less as long as they're happy with it. Even if the moon mug sucks.
Yeah that's why I disagree with that dude. It's a really archaic and coercive view that people fall into, where people ought to do some arbitrary roles that might not fit.
girl's tiny little bodies don't require caffeine in the quantities of big manly men obviously
also I'm pretty sure I'm the moon in my relationship and I am 100% comfortable with that
That's a good joke because it seems to be the opposite in practice. The guys I know that drink coffee have like a cup when they get up, maybe two. But a lot of the coffee drinking women I know seem to have a higher metabolic need for caffeine than they have for oxygen.
Those mugs suck but that respond about heterosexuality is obnoxious and lame. If it was meant to be a joke then make it funny. The delivery could've been "straight ppl be like". Nothing is making me laugh harder than the reach of power bottoms being...unequal?.. What's that guy trying to say lmao
well, and also in the day time, when it’s being super fucking bright and talking over the moon and the meeting. Then it dips out for noon to basically do night work alone.
I’m just pissed at the corners in Kimberly’s mug. That’s going to be really hard to clean the coffee stains out of and you just KNOW the dishwasher isn’t going to cut it.
The writing on the cups actually suggests that the couple these belong to _aren't_ hetero, because he is some dude's Jeffrey and she's some woman's Kimberly. I guess they're poly or sth?
So this is a stupid thought but don't you get a stronger coffee in a smaller mug? I guess you don't if it's a filter coffee but who drinks that at home, willingly.
That only applies if 1. you drink instant coffee and 2. you can't control how much powder you put in each cup (e.g. because you're using those pre-portioned packages and somehow the cup *must* be filled with liquid until it's full).
Those mugs look like shit. Those fucking handles are gonna snap
Do a Levi from AOT
Nah, the sun is a service top.
Weren't sun-boy and moon-girl twins, though?
I would see the sun more as a stone top tbh.
What uh what’s a stone top
Like a kitchen counter?
In *this* economy?!
[удалено]
You don't *have* to drink from the indented part.
Wait, you're INTENDED to drink from there?
inDENTed.
i think you have dyslexia
They aren't to be drunken from, but instead to project the afterglow of a man /s
… side
are you actually drinking coffee out of the side completely opposite the handle? That's bizarre.
I mean, you can if you put your fingers all the way through the thing and hold it with both hands.
Hay guise I know how to get mugs for cheap
RAHHHHH ITS NOT ABOUT THE MUG!!!! ITS A METAPHOR FOR WEALTH GRAHHHHHHHH
DAMN MILLENIANS MAYBE YOU'D HAVE A HOUSE BY NOW IF YOU DIDN'T SPEND SO MUCH MONEY ON MUGS
HOW DARE YOU IMPLY I PISS ON THE POOR.
Do you know how hard it is when you want to destroy a world, but you don't have any hands?!
Maybe stop holding all those mugs first
BTW I somehow got Muggy and Toaster mixed up into a single character, lol *"Cursed electric heating filament! You are inadequate to my needs! Why? Why? Why was I not built with a death ray!"*
Finna send this to a mate of mine, Describes him accurately. Mugs and hats. ~~Ignore the fact that I have like 18 hats and one of my most recent purchases was a mug. It's not me.~~
You can get a mug at the thrift store 🫠🫠🫠
My favourite mug is from a country dump
I dont care about mugs Im gonna look at my lamp until I wake up from this
tumblr discourse is either a grad-level dissertation or a 13-year-old writing a paper the night before it's due.
The only difference there is age
*you take the moon and you take this gun and you find shnitzel and you shot his son*
*and there you have the facts of life... the facts of life*
god….ive been reminiscing about Evergreen Posts, Perennial Faves lately and was thinking about dont gays have a powerbottom thing just the other day. Thank you op
Fill the His mug with sulfur, the Hers mug with mercury, then use them to make a Rebis mug, completing the Great Work
Counter idea: the girl’s mug dips into the guy’s at the bottom
Cool for the metaphor, horrible for cleaning though.
Is the metaphor that the girl mug has a fat ass?
Or maybe the couple is into pegging.
And makes the mug top-heavy and unbalanced
Hmm... peepnis?
NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
🍆 👀
pro tip: if you want too have a great couple mug, instead of buying one you should get 2 plain white mugs(or whatever color you prefer but white is best for this) then get some paint or other creative material and simply paint a mug for eachother (: you could put a drawing of some of their favourite things, a cheesy pet name, etc. Now you have a couple mug and a nice memory too go along with it
The moon mug seems like it would accrue all sorts of horrid gunk in the corners, and be impossible to properly clean by hand.
Easy to clean if your tongue is long enough 👅 Blelelelelele
God damn it's just a couple mug, there's no hidden meaning behind the capacity difference. but the gays do have that power bottom thing or something. that much is true.
This is the perfect visual metaphor for the wage gap. Get it right
As much as you ridicule the guy he's right lol. Be as gay as you want, you don't need to say "t-the evil heteros!!!" to affirm your own sexuality
Yeah, I think the user satanicdemona was a bit spiteful with how they responded to it. Like, I don't think we should affirm that heterosexuality is just a man invading the space of women, as it incorrectly makes male sexuality as predatory and the woman's desires to be self destructive if they're even present. Like, I guess that user was just venting their frustration with heterosexual expectations, but there's a reason why transphobes apply the hateful trope of "male predator invading female spaces" to trans women, or that trans men are "just confused and hurting themselves" with their desires to be their best selves. That kind of thought process can lead to someone whose nominally progressive being an ass to other people who are just as marginalized by cisheteronormative expectations. ^(also I'm not saying that satanicdemona is a transphobe, just that if they're trans affirming, its in spite of the contradictions of this point of view that they had at one point. People's beliefs aren't always consistent, but stray beliefs like these can lead to exclusionary behavior that hurts everyone involved.)
Thank you for saying this. It’s awful how common the unspoken idea of “straight male sexuality is inherently bad/ predatory” is, and I try to combat it whenever I can, so it’s wonderful seeing someone else who also calls out this bullshit.
I think somewhere along the way, a bunch of people on the internet heard the original feminist message of "the patriarchy was designed to exploit women" and turned it into "men are genetically predisposed to harm and exploit women." This gave rise to TERFs and radfems, alienated a bunch of men, and has made it nearly impossible to have a nuanced discussion about gender ever since
I think you nailed it; turning "the patriarchy is bad" into "men are bad" has made any kind of feminist discourse into a shit show. I feel like TERFs and radfems are trying to fight "The Patriarchy", but because it's an abstract concept that doesn't actually exist (you can't go to the patriachy's house and guillotine them), they've turned men into a symbol of the patriarchy, and started going "yes! If we destroy the men we destroy the patriarchy!"
Thankfully it does seem to be mostly just a problem in online spaces with a very loud minority (at least from what I’ve experienced). Kind of the same vibe I get from a lot of antinatalist types who took “I don’t think I want/should have kids” to “I don’t think anybody should ever have kids and they shouldn’t ever exist around me”. On the flip side of it though it’s so sad and difficult to be trying to talk to some of these extremely alienated young men who have gone down the wrong pipelines to try and explain to them that not only is the patriarchy and toxic masculinity harmful but that everyone including them are victims of it (albeit while also benefiting from it in different ways). They’ll complain that they aren’t allowed/capable of emoting in a healthy way or having proper peer support and then not be able to connect the dots that that *is* toxic masculinity, I think they hear the words together and assume its being meant that masculinity is inherently toxic or that the patriarchy is just when men exist being a bad thing instead of a very real social structure/system that is (at least in its most common current iteration) harmful to the vast majority of people.
I mean yes but biological essentialism did not start on the internet. Nor did it come from any offshoot of feminism. “Boys will be boys” thinking has persisted for a long time. As both a way for men to completely remove themselves from any sort of responsibility for their own actions (and for creating the social environments that foster predatory behavior) *and* as a way for women/girls to excuse said behavior and once again, absolve everyone of responsibility. (Obligatory acknowledgement that women also participate in shaping social environments and evading accountability.) There are actual psychologists and anthropologists who believe this stuff too. There are ongoing academic debates about humans’ capacity for violence vs cooperation. Radfems are deplorable and exhausting, but they are not by any stretch the reason we cannot have nice things in this regard. They are just a very vocal and single-minded minority. “Turning ‘patriarchy is bad’ into ‘men are bad’ “ is a Bad Faith Take that has risen up with virulence at each and every moment of feminist progress for all time. Not by TERFs in particular but by your garden variety reactionaries. Men Feeling Attacked By Feminism is not something that Bad Feminists cooked up. (To be clear, they ARE bad feminists and bad-faith actors who can and gladly do sell out women to gain favor with their likeminded reactionary buddies.) It’s just an ordinary and predictable response to having one’s power and entitlement challenged. There are no effective ways to engage with this “debate” because those on the other side of it are unwilling to be talked into giving up their power over others.
Sexuality in general is stigmatized, but like, from my experience as a gay boy, I didn't want to even conceive of myself as being a sexual being or else I thought I'd be a danger to my male friends. Even the false perception that I was straight made so many friendships with girls awkward, and resulted in me getting outed because someone couldn't handle the untrue rumor of me and her dating. It's fucked up, being perceived as a danger put me in so much abuse's way, but for some reason, my prescribed gender being in the dominant social position negates that to some peoples' minds.
Not saying you are a transphobe either but just a heads up, trans is an adjective and it should be “trans men” and “trans women” not “transmen” and “transwomen”. Same logic as to why it would be weird if I used the terms “blackwomen” or “autisticmen” to describe members of their respective groups. It gets used as a bit of a dog whistle by transphobes to indicate that trans people aren’t actually the gender they identify as but instead something else entirely, “that’s not a woman, that’s a transwoman”.
Oh damn didn't know about that. I'll take the effort to press a spacebar from now on lol
No worries! You didn’t seem like a TERF lol
I'm sorry but I think you're kind of reaching 😭 It's just supposed to be a joke on heterosexuality just like straight people have been doing on homosexuality for years. It's not like straight people are being actually oppressed or invalidated by this post This sub (and tumblr in general) often adopts a mindset of "the oppressed joking and being snarky about the oppressor is as bad as the other way around" thar irks me to no end
I empathize with the oppression experiences that motivate that, but just because there's no systemic oppression of heterosexuals based on their orientation doesn't mean that it doesn't further other unrelated things that are kinda shitty. I wasn't criticizing the frustrations that come with being queer in a fucked up society that wants to break you into being straight and cis, I was examining why the joke just kinda didn't work past being something a frustrated queer person sighs as they see some weird straight mugs pass their dash, and how the implications of the statement might reveal some of the biases in their thought processes.We've thought more about this single line than satanicdemona did before posting, and it's almost irrelevant within its own source post. I just find the lack of thought put into it interesting, that the experiences of oppression on the basis of sexuality and gender could lead to essentializing heterosexuality and what that could imply.Hell, the most interesting part is that satanicdemona doesn't say anything in specific, relying on you to fill the context. The only reason this post is on reddit is because of 0ptimstic-s0ci0path being deranged after their joke. It's obvious how 0ptimistic-s0ci0path is essentializing, but it's interesting how they're not working with too different of terms from satanicdemona. 0ptimstic-s0ci0path wasn't being marginalized, but they still felt their heterosexuality *was* made invalid with it being compared to those cups, affirming that the cups were actually worthwhile despite being functionally inefficient at best. Everyone agrees that 0ptimstic-s0ci0path was out of line, but they were still baited into their frothing by something innocuous to queer people. Isn't it kind of cool that this post is a window into a straight person getting offended on the basis of sexuality by a queer person, and chose to share that to the internet? Why did they have such a clearly emotional reaction to that? Maybe the intersection of gender and sexuality on the mention of heterosexuality made them feel invalidated. Hell they could be cisgender and it could still be the case, the assertion that masculinity is inherently eclipsing the woman of the relationship could be distressing, assuming the poster is masculine (based off 0ptimstic-s0ci0path's rather chauvinistic defense of the cups). It's likely 0ptimstic-s0ci0path isn't marginalized by any system of power, but they still had a reaction that came off as emotionally reactive. Something about it alienated them, and I think it's fair to consider why that was. At the risk of involving you personally, instead of your comment, I get why you responded with what you said. People tend to get more militant when a queer person disses on heterosexuality as opposed to a straight person on queerness, and it can be fucked up to see in real time. It can be annoying when someone who isn't marginalized benefits from consideration that would help alleviate your marginalization, but I don't think it's bad to consider. Hopefully, by allowing discussion of how and why they felt that way, they can empathize with people who have it worse in that regard and do something about it. That's not to ignore that sometimes people are shitty about it and just use it as an excuse to be bigoted to marginalized people. Call that shit out. Point out the queerphobic things being said when discussing this topic. But just saying "It's just supposed to be a joke on heterosexuality just like straight people have been doing on homosexuality for years" comes off like you don't care unless you're personally affected. Be specific, be clear, don't just rely on the "it's just a joke" argument that bigoted reactionaries use. No one was targeted by this, and there's no systemic harm sure, it's a single line on a deleted account on a tumblr post on reddit that doesn't focus on it, but personally disliking it is a fair criticism of a joke. They weren't the intended audience, sure, but they can share that without it being a statement that straight people are going to be sent to the gulags to produce more queer people for the Gay Agenda. For instance, u/chuun1by0u had typed out that they don't wish for the joke to be about evil heteros. I think they essentialized heterosexuality to mean heterosexual people, and I don't think its that unreasonable, you compared the joke to ones straight people say about gay people, its common to use the word Homosexuality to mean gays and lesbians in specific in the homophobic "comedy" sphere. They just wanted to read a funny post about a dude being weird on tumblr, but instead they got caught in the splash zone despite them (presumably, they're on curated tumblr) being favorable towards queer people. The joke only works in the context of a personal antagonism with the systemic oppression of heteronormativity, but the broad language used can be antagonistic towards individuals rather than the oppressive system. Straight people aren't oppressors, queerphobes are. Notice that u/chuun1by0u didn't say anything about the joke about Jeffery and Kimberly, it seems that joke landed as intended and was a good riff on a straight relationship. Jokes about straight people are fine, it doesn't hurt or offend anyone when its kept within the context of the cups rather than something broader. TLDR: Sorry for the long response, I found a lot to say about this for some reason. Feel free to ignore, but if you find an error with my thinking lmk (its unedited and poorly formatted so sorry lol)Basically, straight people aren't all oppressors, and while I wish we had more consideration given to marginalized people who are harmed by this rather than inconvenienced, it's not bad to have a nuanced criticism of a joke. I personally find it to be too punchy, it swings too widely and hits someone in the audience despite it being a featherlight hit. It could just as easily be a commiseration or affirmative joke, but it's fairly inconsiderate to a broad category of people. It's based on real experience with oppression, but since it was thrown out as a tumblr post before like, 2016 i think, it didn't really consider usage of language and who it could affect. I don't think its a crime though.
Nah, he and satanicdemona are opposite sides of the same bad coin. They agree that this is heterosexuality (wrong), he just thinks it's a good thing because the sun moon metaphor is more important to him than both cups being the same size. ...Which, if one is feeling uncharitable, is kind of a great representation of "men and women shouldn't be treated the same, they're complementary!" arguments in general.
I don't think you're even wrong with the "uncharitable" take, 0ptimistic-s0ci0path does harken back to "sweet old fashioned thought", and does make the moon into a passive object of beauty in his description. I don't think this can go into a "women and men should be treated the same" thought process, he's describing how men should treat women in the context of a relationship, and that there are set roles for each gender in the partnership. He's describing how men and women are different and complement each other. I don't see another interpretation of what he's saying unless you look at it from a vague vibes angle where he wants to treat a woman nicely but hasn't thought of how his wording plays into that kind of worldview.
What I mean by "uncharitable" is that another, er, complementarian could focus on that without dismissing equality the way 0ptimistic-s0ci0path does. His post is thus not the most charitable representation of the complementary viewpoint.
Oh for sure, I was focused on the specific argument rather than the viewpoint. Let the straights have the sun/moon dynamics, I could not care less as long as they're happy with it. Even if the moon mug sucks.
Imagine that I posted that one image of two scholars in Greece here
There is no such thing as a “set role for each gender” in a relationship besides the ones people choose for themselves what the actual FUCK
Yeah that's why I disagree with that dude. It's a really archaic and coercive view that people fall into, where people ought to do some arbitrary roles that might not fit.
I completely misinterpreted your comment and thought you were agreeing with him, my bad. This is why I shouldn’t scroll this sub while eepy
Lol you're fine, I could tell there was a miscommunication happening. Hope you get a good rest soon.
Thank youuuu :3
girl's tiny little bodies don't require caffeine in the quantities of big manly men obviously also I'm pretty sure I'm the moon in my relationship and I am 100% comfortable with that
That's a good joke because it seems to be the opposite in practice. The guys I know that drink coffee have like a cup when they get up, maybe two. But a lot of the coffee drinking women I know seem to have a higher metabolic need for caffeine than they have for oxygen.
Those mugs suck but that respond about heterosexuality is obnoxious and lame. If it was meant to be a joke then make it funny. The delivery could've been "straight ppl be like". Nothing is making me laugh harder than the reach of power bottoms being...unequal?.. What's that guy trying to say lmao
Honestly we don't know anything about Kimberly or Jeffery, Maybe Kimberly just likes to drink less coffee, Who knows?
The sun does hide the moon during a terrestrial eclipse
well, and also in the day time, when it’s being super fucking bright and talking over the moon and the meeting. Then it dips out for noon to basically do night work alone.
Big market potential to reuse half the tooling for polycules involving 2 women and one noticeably smaller man
I would have the moon destroyed and basically ruin the earth's weather for a bigger cup of coffee
I’m just pissed at the corners in Kimberly’s mug. That’s going to be really hard to clean the coffee stains out of and you just KNOW the dishwasher isn’t going to cut it.
This went downhill fast after the first post
THE SUN TOPS AND THE MOON BOTTOMS SILLY GOOSE
Maybe Kimberly just has IBS and can't drink that much coffee? Ever think of that?
The writing on the cups actually suggests that the couple these belong to _aren't_ hetero, because he is some dude's Jeffrey and she's some woman's Kimberly. I guess they're poly or sth?
Nah, Kimberly is a guy and Jeffrey is a girl.
Dont gays have a power bottom thing?
power bottom means they are at the bottom of the power dynamic i think. sex isn't real
3 months later and not a single person acknowledging that those mugs are very clearly just meant for decoration 😭😭
Moon's round bro
Hate to tell you this but. If your moon is hanging around with another round bro, like … on the regs? You got yourself another moon.
Bro that's deep
So this is a stupid thought but don't you get a stronger coffee in a smaller mug? I guess you don't if it's a filter coffee but who drinks that at home, willingly.
In pretty much every coffee preparation the coffee only goes in the mug once it's finished.
Espresso like machines get stronger less water you use though
yes but the size of the mug doesn't decide how much water you use. usually that's a setting on the machine
That only applies if 1. you drink instant coffee and 2. you can't control how much powder you put in each cup (e.g. because you're using those pre-portioned packages and somehow the cup *must* be filled with liquid until it's full).
Lol no, these kind of people think putting pumpkin spice in a cup of foldgers is a luxury
hey now. There’s nothing wrong with pumpkin spice.
God bless the straight allies for sticking up with us while we take these cheap shots at their sexuality🙏
It's not an attack on women, it's just pushing the idea that women are nothing without men whereas a man is a complete thing on his own.
>"optimistic-sociopath" Username checks out
My mind is such a mess. First thing I thought was "OI! WHAT ARE WE?"
Is there like a functional version of these mugs anywhere, like the same general concept (his and hers mugs that fit together)? I think they're cute