Part two of a collection of best tweets found in the #bisexualfacts twitter tag.
(Part one here.)
Tip for other bi women: if you want men to get really mad at you, just mention that you have higher standards for men than for women or that you might prefer women over men.
mom 4 hours ago: we’re only staying for 30 minutes
i deal with my feelings in a healthy way
and by healthy way i mean shoving them aside and spending hours on the internet doing basically nothing to keep my thoughts far far far away from them it’s foolproof yes
If we learned anything from the Mayans, it’s that if you don’t finish something, it’s not the end of the world.
ok context I don’t mean DOESNT SHOW CHANGE AT ALL (it uh, does show change in standards) but doesn’t show NEGATIVE (i.e. WORSE) change or MORE standards. In fact, there have always been LOTS OF STANDARDS and art history usually involves a hell of a lot of talking about those standards.
when people show me something like this
WOW REAL BODY WOMAN LOOK CURVES AND BELLY SO REAL WHY CAN’T WOMEN NOW BE HELD TO THESE STANDARDS?? WHAT HAPPEN, SO CONFUSED.
i inevitably more or less bite back a very nasty mental stream that goes because you dumbass, that isn’t a real body either, much less a “real” woman.
- what in the ever loving fuck is her musculature doing
- HER SPINE IS TOO LONG IT IS LITERALLY NOT HUMANLY POSSIBLE
- HER SPINE DOES NOT CONNECT TO HER HIPS PROPERLY
- yes she has a rounded belly but are you kidding me right now that was ALSO a beauty construct contemporary to the time that was intended to represent a perfection that no mortal average woman could achieve and sure they were HONEST about it but this was not a real person, not even a little bit.
- even the models would not have looked like this
- i mean holy shit her breasts looked like they were slapped on like playdoh
- literally this is the equivalent of pre-photography photoshop. this is not a real human being. this is an idealized version of a goddess/woman whom no one is supposed to come close to. the anatomy is physically impossible. she is white, blonde, and hairless. her breasts (while poorly rendered) are perfectly round and perky with outtie nipples. She has an appropriate flush on her cheeks and knees. There is not a single blemish on her skin, and there are no wrinkles, only necessary skin folds.
- ps as soon as photography was invented, people altered images of people’s bodies but basically this is just as bad as photoshop is so using it to prove your point is a horrid idea.
remember the cartoon: Born in the Wrong Century that was supposed to be about Fat Acceptance Positivity…
but has the woman in question was admiring Rubens Rape of the Daughters of Leucippus?
**people who try to argue that rape just meant abduct in the baroque period can fall off a cliff these mean were kidnapping women and ripping off their clothes IN THE PAINTING ITSELF and were stealing them to MAYBE marry them and DEFINITELY rape them.
art history is a long long history of women’s visual identities and bodies being moulded and crafted BY men, idealized BY male standards, attacked and deformed and demonized BY men. when people try to pull this “look how rubenesque and great this is! fat isn’t bad!” stuff on me, an ART HISTORIAN, i have to laugh.
Who is this better for?
- those images still represent sexual violence against women much of the time or idealized nonrealistic women that men of the time period held actual human woman to this standard
- they are largely (read, like: 90% of the time) white if they are “beautiful”. if they are not white they are eroticized and demeaned for the White Male Gaze.
- any real models used for these — were possibly mistresses, models, or prostitutes who may have been taken advantage of — and even then their bodies were altered to rid them of “imperfections”
- plus lol baroque women who were fat by today’s standards were only the wealthy elite nobility who could AFFORD that much food so even then like today, food was linked to class lmao
- like 99% of the time people who try to use this for body pos acceptance are white women who literally have never sat down for two seconds to consider the implications that these paintings are done by men in order to control female body perceptions and female sexuality to demean women of color, to sexualize them, to normalize rape and assault and violence in association with female sexuality — these people don’t. really care about any of the deeper meaning of anything!!!! straight up tell me how a naked hairless blonde white lady from the 1700’s is ANY DIFFERENT from a naked hairless blond white lady from 2013.
- and people who don’t think art or image criticism through naturally annoy me because this is my job it’s what i do i study a whole hell of a lot of naked people. trust me friend: oil on canvas pornography or prints from the 18th century are not more body positive than porn today.
- basically if ur feminist body pos movement focuses on using images from the longstanding canon of the Male Gaze in Art History then ur feminist body pos movement is very white, very shit, classicist as fuck, and not very well thought out, sorry.
Zoomed out while taking a picture of my Christmas tree