Enhance Modernity, Reclaim Tradition

Cameo with portraits of Cosimo I de' Medici, Eleonor of Toledo, and their children (1558–1562) Carved from a massive, multi-layered agate by Italian master Giovanni Antonio de' Rossi (1513–after 1575), this masterpiece of Mannerist luxury stands as a premier example of Renaissance glyptic art. Commissioned by Cosimo I de' Medici, Duke of Florence, the cameo profiles the ruler alongside his wife, Eleonor of Toledo, and five of their sons.

thequietbotanist

And it makes me think about how we KNOW that colonizers 'studying' precolonial societies looked at people who weren't weighed down by religious shame or wearing 4+ layers of clothing in hot environments and projected their repressed sexuality onto them.

We KNOW that where sexualities existed, these freak ass euros were obsessive about it and hardly had concepts of anything more subtle or nuanced happening outside of it (these are the same people who saw centuries-old food forests as 'untouched land' so like...par for the course)

And knowing that I REALLY think people- especially white LGBTQ fols-- need to step back bc I keep seeing y'all look at cultural relationship patterns beyond and from before your contemporary culture and all you draw from it is an individualistic liberty of identity. And not to shame but that's the big fucking shadow torturing the community IMO. Like others have said, being gay or trans or whatever doesn't actually absolve you of being part of a contemporary colonial culture, that takes actual work to examine and shift from.

I'm tired of how y'all cherry pick that such and such African tribes had Woman Husbands with multiple wives or that such and such Polynesian culture had open relationships and thats fucking ALL YOU FUCKING TAKE. It's really hard not to get mad. Not because 'boo you're wrong' but that ONCE AGAIN Y'ALL SEE WHAT YOU WANT AND NOTHING MORE.

This was also one of my issues when a few years back everyone wanted to rant and rave about how having free sex and/or multiple partners was gonna revolutionize society.

DID IT?? DID IT??

This is very much like when privileged white ppl in the 60s-70s, exhausted by war, were very ready to adopt cheapened eastern philosophies and their conceptualization around 'transformative' love and sex was just like...orgies and irresponsibility.

Anyway point being that in many cases, wherever you find societies that were based on these various forms of plural relationship that also very very much included shared-responsibility/economic connection driven relationships. Someone's 'wife' could very well have been a co-mother or business partner and NOT her lover. Many times.

To go back to what I was talking about before, I'm fucking hitting snooze on the shit y'all think is so revolutionary until it stops being about you and your fucking desires. Personal wants, needs and desires are important to tend to but it's the BARE FUCKING MINIMUM of building a society.

Please understand that just because you KNOW that your current culture is hyperindividualistic and maybe even hypersexualised doesn't mean you actually have worked out the many ways that's affecting your perspective. It's like with decolonial thought-- you don't just get to say "I've decolonized" without doing years of ongoing fucking work.

I've said it before but a lot of the LGBT/Alt sexuality scene is bound by a very limiting perspective where all you can see or conceptualize is an identity that is self-referential. All you can really center is the pendulum swing away from the shitty right wing sex negativity of your forebears. And I get it too bc when you're not allowed to be who you are from young, you end up having to go through that phase when you're older. But this is why we have ppl in their 20s & 30s and beyond who have very little in the way of community mindset and really only see being 'queer' as a space to self validate sexual exploration and 'I get to do what I want!' personal expression.

Anyway this convo has me thinking about a theory I heard (I really wish I could remember the name of the dude who said this) that's like...books like the Bible don't make anyone good. People have certain qualities and they use religious texts (or any texts at all!) to justify their framework.

Which is why you can have people who read the bible and it furthers their inclination that it's important to be compassionate and generous-- then you have other people who read it and it furthers their conviction that the 'evil' people in the world should be punished.

There is a deep conviction in the heart of most people in our society- non-indigenous descendants of europeans most of all- that the goal of life is about what YOU can take, what YOU want, and gaining the ability of individual liberty above all else. No information about other cultures is going to magically fix that. It takes work. Lots of cognitive rewriting and in an age where people are ever more illiterate to the point that even personal thought is being outsourced to machines, I have my doubts about how much meaningful internal work will be accomplished.

and he paused for a second and then said, “when you’ve been taught from a young age that crying is weak and you should train yourself never to cry for any reason, you assume that everyone else has trained themselves too, so anyone who cries has to be doing it on purpose. it took me a long time to realize that wasn’t true.”

From the POV of the “person who made the other one cry” and from the POV of anyone else watching, we are *also* trained to immediately presume the person not crying has just gone too far. Suddenly whatever argument we have collapses, whatever wrong needs righting must be put aside or flat-out forgiven because “you made somebody cry you’re the ultimate asshole congrats” is also a thing. And, at least for me, *that’s* why they can feel manipulative when they’re not, because of this social pressure to bend to tears.

Unfortunately in my experience tears like this have always meant “my grievances must be swallowed because they’re sensitive and immune to consequences and if I keep pushing or attempt to circle back later, I’m being unreasonable and cruel” keeps happening.

Involuntary stress response is involuntary stress response, just with this current system everybody loses. Being pressured to shoulder the blame and guilt for triggering someone’s stress response is a very slippery slope to not standing up for yourself lest you risk upsetting someone and looking like a bully.

I would also like to add that crying is one of the few stress responses that people respond to with sympathy, at least for women and people perceived as women. Hence why some women do fake crying, and why people may suspect them of doing so. Other stress responses are virtually always penalised.

I don't cry from stress, or at least I haven't since I was very small child. I do cry from grief, and I sometimes have tears when listening to or watching something emotional, so it's not that I can't cry or that I restrain myself; I just don't have the tendency to cry from stress.

My natural response to stress is to raise my voice. I was trained, from a very early age, never to do that for any reason. Because that's "shouting" and it's "scary" and "aggressive" and "makes everything worse", and it might make someone else cry.

If I "make" someone cry (not even by being loud; I've seen a grown woman cry because I misunderstood an instruction and she took that personally) then I am expected to apologise. If someone makes me stressed enough to raise my voice... then I am also expected to apologise for "losing my temper".

Because is recognised as a sign of stress whereas a raised voice is interpreted as a sign of aggression, and people then subject the person to even more stress as punishment.

Another thing that a someone who cries easily may not realise is that their crying causes stress in other people. Yet if someone was crying and another person responded by shouting, swearing, storming out, shutting down, or even bursting into tears themselves - or really doing anything other than apologising/offering comfort - then that would be taken badly. The burden is on others to maintain their emotional control while the person crying has lost theirs.

British heavy bomber Handley Page Halifax B.III in flight

It involves lying, often manipulation/gaslighting, and putting your partner at risk of STIs & STDs. It can also be part as a broader pattern of abuse in a relationship (most commonly of a man against a woman). It's always psychologically traumatic for the person being cheated on.

Of course it doesn't justify any other abuse.

Northern Hairy-nosed Wombat or Yaminon (Lasiorhinus krefftii), family Vombatidae, order Diprotodontia, QLD, Australia

CRITICALLY ENDNGERED.

South American Tapir Tapirus terrestris

Also known as anta (Brazilian Portuguese), and la sachavaca (literally "bushcow", in mixed Quechua and Spanish), it can be found near water in the Amazon rainforest and River Basin in South America, east of the Andes. It is an excellent swimmer and diver, but also moves quickly on land, even over rugged, mountainous terrain. It has a life span of approximately 25 to 30 years.

While the crab-eating fox’s (Cerdocyon thous) name implies that crabs make up most of its diet, this canid is omnivorous and has a wide-ranging menu that changes with the seasons. It lives in parts of eastern and northern South America, where it’s found in forests, savannas, shrubland, and wetlands. During the dry season, it may snack more on insects; during the wet season, it favors crustaceans.

Addax Addax nasomaculatus

The Four Seasons of Brambly Hedge by Jill Barklem

The Brambly Hedge books are a modern publishing phenomenon. The first four little books, published in 1980, have now been reprinted more than twenty times, and sales are in the millions.

Jill Barklem chose the original small format herself: it seemed to suit her miniature community of self-sufficient mice. But her ability to visualize the detail of Brambly Hedge deserves a closer look, and for this reason the original pictures have now been re-organized to a larger size. At last Brambly Hedge can be enjoyed in all its detail, displaying Jill Barklem's artistic talent to the full.