Repository for Random Fandom Stuff

OOC sideblog, full of random things that amuse the mun or opinions that the mun happens to agree with.

medievalpoc:

juniperstreet replied to your post “Dear Readers”

Your blog is SO IMPORTANT to me and my POC family. My dad works at a prison & he shares info from your blog during his classes & sessions with POC inmates to give them the representation & dignity of history they’ve been denied their whole lives.

That is amazing and beautiful. Please tell your dad that I am grateful for his important work.

re: chromophobia... of course these chromophobes idolized a Greek/Roman past full of cool white marble.... which we've since discovered was actually a gaudily painted riot of color!
ooc-but-stylish ooc-but-stylish Said:

medievalpoc:

magpiemindset:

medievalpoc:

medievalpoc:

ocassis:

medievalpoc:

hifish:

I always love seeing this fact pop up. Yeah, what we thought was the ancients just being really cool and aesthetic was actually the gaudy colors fading away over time. It’s like when people think that old houses were built better than they are now, when it’s really just that the shitty houses all fell down already.

Ummmm but the problem is not so much that they weren’t being “cool and aesthetic”; it’s that this entire western concept of aesthetics is built on a mistake.

The ask was in response to this article, which makes it 200 times funnier.

fittingly, I was just reading this:

The Parthenon marbles Elgin took to Britain do consist of marble, but a darkly pitted Greek marble rather than the smooth, snowy white variety more common in Italy.  Here lay an aesthetic problem: whiteness versus color.  The alarming history of European marble “cleaning” includes a chapter on this statuary describing a drive to make ancient Greek art white that nearly destroyed the art itself. In the 1930s workers in the British Museum were directed to remove the dark patina with metal tools on the mistaken assumption that their proper color should be white.  Such a “cleaning” seriously damaged the Parthenon marbles, prompting an inquiry by the museum’s standing committee that halted the work.

—Nell Irvin Painter, The History of White People, page 63

It’s particularly obnoxious given the claims by so many British people that the marbles had to be removed to Britain in order to protect them.

The bold: People should really know about that, too.

And yes, it is connected with this article about Chromophobia and colonialism

which is also connected to the Reformation.

Especially if you think about (at least in an American context) the way that Catholicism has been, to a large degree, racialized. And how the Catholic Mass and other traditions came to be associated with licentiousness and was condemned for its use of decoration (aside form legitimate gripes with corruption).

see also: Calvinist Iconoclasm:

medievalpoc:

OMG!!! I FORGET PEOPLE DON’T KNOW THIS!

Yes, all those aloof, “pure” white statues from Ancient Greece?

They actually looked like this:

Vinzenz Brinkmann, much to the apparent chagrin of Westerners everywhere, used ultraviolet light to reveal the original paint schemes of these statues that the millennia had washed away.

And to underscore the Chromophobia?

Check out this graphic that i09 made for their leading image for this story:

You can check out a video here to learn more about the methods used to discover the original paint schemes of these statues and reliefs.

In the summer of 1566, spurred on by the sermons of Calvinist preachers, zealous mobs descended on churches in the Netherlands, intent on ridding them entirely of their imagery. Many churches were literally white-washed.

All of these things are connected.

reblogging for someone who recently asked about this.

Someone also asked about over-cleaning or modifications made to various Greek and roman works in European Possession.

British Museum: Over-Cleaning of the Elgin Marbles

British Museum: Public Response

Like, they were literally dipping them in acid to make them “pure and white” as they imagined they were “originally”.

As for the Met, you can read here just how far art curators are willing to go to modify artworks to fit their ideas on how they SHOULD look.

Medieval churches in England also suffered from a similar problem. Originally they were covered in murals, floor to ceiling, in the gaudiest colours they could manage. Part of it was probably to engage the illiterate population with a giant devotional picture book. 

Here’s a snippet from one I studied in the Deanery of Durham Cathedral:

image

Then along came the Reformation with its accusations of idolatry, its desire for direct book learning for everyone and its general drive to make everything boring  remove the distractions of the material world.

In some churches, they chipped the images off the walls, but in many they just white-washed over them. 

Which would be fine for us, since layers of white-wash can be removed to reveal the original paintings, as happened in the Deanery and as happens around the UK by accident on a regular basis, where the old white-wash is still in place.

But alas, the Victorians happened. They saw the bare stones of the thoroughly defaced churches and thought they had more grandeur than the white-washed or ,worse, the still painted churches, and so set about ‘restoring’ the churches of England.

Granted, compared to the art of the renaissance and the classical greek world, the English medieval murals do look like crude kiddy scribbles, offensive to the Victorian (and modern) sense of taste and not at all what they wanted in their monumental architecture. But they were the medieval decoration, like it or not.

'Victorian Restoration' is a well-known oxymoron in old architectural nerd circles. The walls of many churches were stripped back to the stone and in some cases, beyond. The entire outer surface of Durham Cathedral was chipped off (I forget the exact depth, some small number of centimetres), to make it 'clean'. 

But yeah, prior to the Reformation, the British Isles loved colours. There were the sumptuary laws, in which the nobility tried to keep the wearing of awesome colours to themselves when rich commoners started to get in on the deal. There were the bardic rules in Ireland, where the higher rank a bard you were, the more colours you got to wear. And then there was the amazing rivalry between blue dye merchants and red dye merchants (you know why devils were painted as red? Because the blue dye merchants were slandering the red dye merchants.)

But alas, the Victorians Happened=best paragraph intro since everything changed when the Fire Nation attacked

pishtacos:

as a victim of childhood sexual abuse myself, i just find it absolutely terrifying that there’s people who call themselves feminists but will defend a man’s “right” to get off to my trauma. kinksters are shit and if you’re defending them you’re shit

you are not feminists, you are male worshipping shitstains who should have never even learned how to speak

Asker Anonymous Asks:
i'm in a ddlg relationship and i just wanna clarify that it has NOTHING to do with pedophilia. my bf isn't into little girls/i'm not into my dad/calling him daddy is completely different its like calling your spouse "baby" its comforting
ooc-but-stylish ooc-but-stylish Said:

fucked-up-fetlife:

radfemale:

As long as you’re comfortable with calling your boyfriend the term widely known as something children call their fathers. As long as you’re comfortable with your boyfriend envisioning you as a little girl. Be fucking critical. “Daddy” and “Little girl.” How much closer can you get to pedophilia? I see so many blogs about these sort of ‘ddlg’ relationships (unfortunately), and there’s always so many cases of ‘I talked back to daddy last night, so he hit me a little too hard but I know I deserved it and I told him I wouldn’t do it again so I made it up to him.” And then there’s her ‘daddy’ with his own tumblr explaining the same situation and why she needed ‘disciplining’.

Not only is it pedophilic, the word ‘dominant’ matched with the image of a dad (and the way ddlg people talk to each other) places the man in this disciplinarian, dominating, controlling, possessive person in the relationship and the woman has to ‘do what she’s told’ AND IT’S MADE ‘SEXY’. 

It’s pretty much society returned to women’s rights experienced prior to the 60s added with a few ingredients such as incestual images, ultra violent undertones and did I mention pedophilia?

It 100% stems from pedophilia

Men call women “girls” rather than women in order to see us as immature and inferior and you think that’s not happening when he calls you that? And then add in the daddy/girl aspect? He’s getting off on a pedophilic idea and essentially that’s pedophilia-apologizing. 

Asker Anonymous Asks:
Wow okay, go fuck yourself. My master is a huge feminist as am I out of the bedroom but in the bedroom I like being dominated. Out of the bedroom I'm extremely afraid of most men other than my master/boyfriend as I was sexually abused but in the bedroom I like being controlled. Because I like being his slut in the bedroom doesn't mean I agree with the objectification of women. I allow him to treat me like an object in bed but other wise I don't. My kink has nothing to do with society.
ooc-but-stylish ooc-but-stylish Said:

survivorsofkinkunite:

princess--bilight-sparkle:

You could have triggered me. Sexual abuse can be triggering, BDSM can be triggering, misogynistic slurs can be triggering. You decided that telling me personally about your sex life was more important than my well-being.

Hey guess what. Using misogynistic slurs as misogynistic slurs in the bedroom perpetuates their power as misogynistic slurs.

Society tells you that you should be a sexual object for men’s pleasure. But no, society had nothing to do with your desires. You just coincidentally want to be a sexual object for men’s pleasure…but only sometimes.

Men who want to sexually dominate women aren’t exactly “huge feminists,” and women who support them (at the expense of other women) aren’t either. Your consent doesn’t redeem a man’s desire to dominate women.

This is what kink terrorism looks like.

caelas:

saying feminism is unnecessary because you don’t feel oppressed is like saying fire extinguishers are unnecessary because your house isn’t on fire

(via survivorsofkinkunite)

Honestly, when I arrived at the small studio in New York where I filmed my scene for a few hours — and after I signed away all my rights to claim any subsequent trauma that might arise from filming the scene — I thought that my decision to do a scene with this notoriously rough sex web site was daring, bad-ass, even subversive.

IN DEFENSE OF KINK: MY FIRST ROLE AS THE DUKE PORN STAR WAS ON A ROUGH SEX WEBSITE, AND NO, THAT DOESN’T MAKE ME A BAD FEMINIST

after I signed away all my rights to claim any subsequent trauma that might arise from filming the scene

after I signed away all my rights to claim any subsequent trauma that might arise from filming the scene

after I signed away all my rights to claim any subsequent trauma that might arise from filming the scene

Just let that register. Take your time.

(via survivorsofkinkunite)

Asker Anonymous Asks:
What kinks do you consider problematic? Do you think that if a woman consents and genuinely enjoys it (woman with odd kinks here) it could still be considered negative?
ooc-but-stylish ooc-but-stylish Said:

fuckyeahcourtneystodden:

I think women are “groomed” to “enjoy” certain things. Male sexual violence is a big one. I consider BDSM, daddy/little girl, rape fetishes to be problematic. I’m not saying you can’t do it. I’m saying that BDSM and rape fetishes sexualize violence and rape which I consider to be hugely problematic. Specifically I am talking about male dom, female sub but I do personally find all sexualized violence to be a negative thing.

Sexualizing incest, sexualizing childhood molestation… those things are problematic and actively hurt women in the end. When you sexualize male violence, when you sexualize rape, when you sexualize childhood sexual abuse, you contribute to the normalization of those things as well as rape culture. I don’t support the sexualization of male violence against women nor do I support the sexualization of childhood sexual abuse, and I absolutely do not support being open about those things either. Because they’re incredibly triggering to some people, hence my sex negative and kink critical stances.

I often hear the argument about it being “just in my bedroom so it’s private”. And if that were true that would be all well and good for the most part. But kinksters are rarely ever private about that stuff and it’s plastered all over for anyone to be exposed to and triggered by. And I fear that this is teaching young girls that being beaten in the bedroom is something they should be aroused by or they should expect or they should partake in. The normalization of these things is teaching girls that sex is violent, degrading, painful, and humiliating AND that they should like it. 

I absolutely believe that consent and “genuine enjoyment” can and is absolutely still negative and problematic. Lots of people consent or enjoy bad things. Men consent to and enjoy raping and beating women. People consent to and enjoy murdering others. People consent to and enjoy bestiality or abusing children. People consent to or enjoy bullying and telling others to commit suicide. Consent and enjoyment does not equal acceptability.

I believe that a lot of sexual practices deserve critique and sexualizing male violence against women is one of them.

kinksterbullshit:

If you think the existence of female dommes is in any way evidence that BDSM and the BDSM community is not inherently misogynistic, you are completely, 100%, certifiably delusional.

Male subs of female dommes get off on the fact that a woman has taken power over them. It is erotic and “kinky” because they know that outside of their bedroom and/or scene, they have the true power over women, and so playtime in the bedroom is a twisted eroticized fantasy, because males honestly cannot believe women ever being in a position of power (i.e., equal standing with men) and so it’s “sexy” because to them it is so highly unrealistic. And that’s fucked up, and that’s misogyny. Women in positions of power do not exist to be fetishized, but that’s what these males do.

Further, if you’ve ever been or truly listened to the accounts of female dommes in communities or on sick rapist-pit websites such as the detestable FetLife, you’d know for yourself that they are not taken seriously. Male doms seek out these women and threaten to rape them—to “teach them” how to enjoy “proper” sex. To groom them, submit them, own them. It’s a power play and it’s what men love—to prove their dominance over a woman. And this shit doesn’t stay strictly online—“play parties” that go bad when a male decides to “try his hand” at “fixing” a female domme, men who rape, assault, humiliate, and degrade female dommes in a public setting to prove who’s really in control. And guess what? That’s fucked up. And that’s misogyny.

The existence of women within your interests, communities, parties, and so forth does NOT excuse yourself or these things of promoting violent misogyny. It is misogyny fetishized, it is the patriarchy wearing costumes in your bedroom, and it is not empowering, and it is not liberating.

Stop using female dommes as scape-goats for your perverted interests in beating, abusing, and raping women. It doesn’t fucking work, and you must be a lunatic to have convinced yourself of such high levels of bullshit.

-Dawn.

medievalpoc:

scribbleowl reblogged your post and added:

It keeps hitting me, now that I have access to these images, how insane modern US historical education is. Specifically that we can be taught about the Silk Road, the Crusades, the Roman Empire with its roads you could safely travel from one end of the empire to the other, and the Out of Africa theory… We learn of all these events that logically would have led to a mixture of races coexisting and yet … we’re also taught that this didn’t happen. That Europe was white as a Minnesota blizzard until colonialism.

And this is the prevailing school of thought. People get violent defending it. It’s what I believed until I started seeing this art, and I have a vested interest in knowing the history of my people. And it makes NO SENSE.

Just another reason this blog is so valuable.

Responses like this mean the world to me. It’s my sincere hope that even people who dislike my writing or conclusions will hopefully still look at these images and understand how important they are. That is why I have a flickr, where all the images are uploaded. It is not necessary to follow here.

image

There are so many museums whose collections you can view, search, and explore on your own, as well: