Mangotime1234 🍉

The first time he cheated death, Sisyphus had just angered Zeus by revealing the location of the Asopid Aegina whom Zeus abducted. Which is super valid, fuck Zeus.

Sisyphus knew that Zeus would send the god of death Thanatos after him, so he prepared a trap and trapped Thanatos in the chains meant for him.

After that, nothing on Earth was able to die so long as Thanatos was in chains. Which meant no animals could be sacrificed to the gods. This angered the gods, who made Sisyphus' life so miserable with pain and illness that he would beg for death. And so he released Thanatos.

But then came the second time Sisyphus cheated death. As he was dying, he asked his wife to dump his naked corpse in the middle of the public square. Denied a proper burial, his soul ended up on the far side of the river Styx, unable to cross.

He complained to Hades and Persephone about how his wife disrespected him, and begged them to let him return briefly to the world of the living to scold her and make her bury him properly. They agreed, and Sisyphus returned to life. He then embraced his wife, and refused to return to the Underworld.

It's only when he finally died of old age that he was sent to Tartarus and punished with the boulder.

I don't remember where I've seen it, but I like the interpretation that Sisyphus doesn't have to push the boulder. He can choose to stay in Tartarus and rest. But he was promised that if he managed to push the boulder to the top of the mountain, he'll ascend to Elysium.

And Sisyphus, in his stubbornness and cleverness, refuses to give up on a challenge.

The problem wasn’t what I had access to. It was that I didn’t have access to a safe adult I could actually talk to; someone I could trust to help me without immediately cutting me off from everything and everyone. I remember getting messages from strangers on Skype. I didn’t even respond. But when my parents found out, they banned me from using it entirely. That meant losing most of my contact with friends outside of school. So what did I do? I went behind their backs. And once I was hiding, I couldn’t tell them when something actually dangerous was happening, like when I started being groomed. By the time things escalated, I was already alone with it.

I think about an episode of Scared Straight where a girl was dragged through a prison because she’d been talking to adult men online. She wasn’t doing that because she was reckless or malicious; she was lonely. Her parents weren’t present, she was being bullied at school, and these men gave her attention, told her she was pretty, told her she mattered. She was already being harmed. And the adults in her life responded by terrorizing her. Humiliating her. Calling her a slut. Telling her she deserved it. Breaking her to pieces.

What lesson does that actually teach? Not “this is dangerous, come to us.” It teaches: If you get hurt, we will hurt you more. Do you really think that makes her stop, or does it just make the predators look safer by comparison? They might as well have driven her straight into the jaws of those predators with torches and pitchforks. Because when every path back to safety is lined with punishment, kids don’t run away from danger. They run deeper into it.

If you want kids to be safe, stop treating them like problems to control and start treating them like people worth protecting. Stop ripping away their autonomy the second they make a mistake or encounter something risky. Stop teaching them that honesty will cost them everything.

Tw for pedophilia, transphobia, csa discussions.

suggestrogen/isuggestforcefem was a popular tumblr account that recently deactivated after facing major pushback from posts she made regarding pedophilia.

There are now multiple popular blogs claiming this was a harrassment campaing, pedojacketing, stalking, etc. Interestingly enough, the people defending her very rarely show what she actually said. So here i aim to compile everything that happened and provide context. If you have heard that this was rooted in transphobia, i encourage you to read this in its entirety and judge for yourself.

Many people are saying her words were misconstrued. According to these people: what she said was this:

"Pedophiles are not ontologically evil, and there is a difference between pedophilia and child abuse."

If this was all of it, while im sure it would have caused discourse because it is a controversial thing to say, I don't think it would have caused this much pushback. But if you actually read what she said, you'll know this wasn't all that happened and it is leaving out huge amounts of context in an effort to make her look better.

1. Previously problematic behavior.

Before this current debacle, isff had already been called out for displaying transphobia towards trans men. Here are some examples of this sort of behavior.

I don't particularly participate in transandrophobia discourse but I find it incredibly disingenous to pretend trans men dont face specific issues. Are trans women affected by forced birth as a means of detransition? Are they affected by claims of being "broken women who cant think for themselves and are being manipulated"? No! This isn't to say there are no issues with the transmasc community or that trans men never benefit from transmisogyny. But one thing is to say that, and another is to consistently villanize trans men, to treat them like they are just as privileged as cis men and face NO struggles of their own. Like the only struggle that matters is that of white trans women.

This is the first example of isff displaying black and white thinking. There can be no nuance regarding trans men and their role in transmisogyny. It's either "trans men are oppressed by trans women" or "trans men are oppressing trans women." There is no room in her head for a potentially nuanced opinion. We will continue to see this as we go forward with her takes on pedophilia.

2. The pedophilia saga.

A few days ago, ISFF posted this:

These are not her own words, she is posting on behalf of a friend. But she does agree with the points made and defends them:

Many people seem to think what she is saying is perfectly reasonable, and while I think many of them are just blatantly malicious, I also think many are just gullible, so I will attempt to break down all her points in good faith.

1. Pedophilia is attraction not action, therefore, calling pedophiles child abusers is unfair unless they actually have abused anyone: This is the only true thing this whole thing says, and even then, it is very disingenous. If a pedophile has not acted on their urges, then they are by definition, not an abuser. HOWEVER, they are more likely to become an abuser due to the persistent nature of the desires. In the same way a person with homicidal urges is more likely to murder someone with time, a pedophile is also more likely to act on their desires if they don't learn to deal with said urges adequately. So technically true, but leaving out the context that yes, these urges do evolve and then lead to actions, to me reads as manipulative. A pedophile is not going to be harmless if they don't do the work to manage their disorder. It's active work, which is why promoting this passive view on pedophilia is extremely dangerous, because it makes people think their urges will be fine on their own instead of actively working on them.

2. Pedophilia is similar to having a noncon kink. If having a noncon kink is okay and not going to lead to rape, then how is pedophilia any different?: False equivalency, kinks and pedophilia are different psychological experiences. Dark kinks are usually not literal. Very often it is the brain creating subconscious symbolism in the realm of fantasy that doesn't reflect their views on reality. So a person with a noncon kink is different than someone with rape urges, which is what a pedophile is.

3. If people who experience attraction to adults are not going to force that attraction on every person they're attracted to, why do we expect the same for pedophiles?: Second false equivalency, ordinary sexual attraction is also a different psychological experience to pedophilia. A gay person is not going to rape every men he meets, but they will still act out their desires in consensual spaces. Plus, unless the person has an unhealthy view on sex, the idea of rape would be distressing enough that it would discourage the person from forcing their attraction. At their core, these desires are rooted in the attraction towards consensual activities, so even in a situation where you find yourself attracted to someone who may not reciprocate, because rape is not in line with your desires, the attraction won't lead to abuse easily (unless as stated, the person does have unhealthy views on sex).

But pedophiles inherently have a disordered view on sex. It is a disorder where you are consistently attracted to people who cannot consent to you, so there isn't this disconnect between their desires and the act of rape. The desire is rape. Additionally, while a gay person can eventually find a consensual partner, pedophiles can't! No, i don't expect gay men to force themselves on every men they meet, but I do realize they'll be inclined to explore their sexuality consensually. A pedophile will probably also feel inclined to explore their sexuality, but there is no consensual alternative.

4. Pedophiles are a marginalized group comparable to queer people: Are they? The people who benefit from the social structures that promote CSA because it aligns with their wants are marginalized? Sure, the topic of pedophilia is taboo, but it is also structurally reinforced, so it evidently isn't the same thing. Now, some people will argue that it is child abusers who benefit, not pedophiles. But a pedophile is just one kind of person who wishes to abuse children. Sure, they aren't the only ones. But they are a demographich that benefits because their desires align with the structures in place. Wanting to rape children for power vs wanting to rape children for sexual attraction isn't that different, both are desires that if acted on cause harm, and the healthy thing to do is to encourage these people to seek help and coping mechanisms instead of telling them "well, it's just like being gay!"

3. Consequences vs call out culture.

Before anyone says this is harrassment. If a popular blog came out defending nazism or terf ideology, wouldn't you all be outraged? You would! And you would understand the push back as not harrassment, but retaliation. So why is it that when it comes to pedophilia you all suddenly turn a blind eye? Suddenly we should just block and move on. Why is this the one topic you want people to stay quiet about?

People say it's because she's trans and... really? The point of trans feminism is to treat trans women as human beings, and I don't think infantilizing trans women as people who do no wrong ever is treating them like humans. Some trans women are bad people, not because of their gender, but because human beings are capable of harm.

It is important however to not pretend this is representative of transfeminism. Terfs will take advantage of this and push the narrative this is an example of trans women being predatory. It is an exaple of a trans woman being predatory. A niche tumblr blog is not representative of an incredibly diverse demographic.

The people accusing those criticizing her of transphobia are ironically pushing this rethoric. By saying criticizing one trans woman is somehow criticizingball trans women, you portray trans women as some kind of monolith. Even though suggestrogen's beliefs are not at all accepted by the trans community at large (and no, your terminally online tumblr mutuals arent the representatives of what most trans women think).

4. What this says about site wide culture:

This really has shown some of the major pitfalls of tumblr culture. Many people will fall for bigoted ideals if presented to them under supposedly progressive language. Many people here treat trans womanhood as a sort of sainthood status where trans women are no longer people, but entities incapable of harm. Many people are attempting to normalize predatory behavior under the guise of kink. Many blogs have been pushing for this for a long time now, and this is just the first person who finally came out and said it without filters. This was the result of a myriad of bad ideologies the site has been fostering finally coming together all at once.