Sans titre

1.5M ratings
277k ratings

See, that’s what the app is perfect for.

Sounds perfect Wahhhh, I don’t wanna
lunawolf237-is-gay
toastyglow

everyone simply must stop saying Grooming when they mean Indoctrination

toastyglow

grooming is a specific cluster of behaviors exclusively meant to sow the seeds for a romantic/sexual relationship with a child/teen over time. (some people also use it to refer to adults with severely uneven power dynamics, but the strictest definition is the previous one). the perpetrator is usually someone already close to the victim, most often a relative or trusted family friend.

indoctrination means intentionally instilling a partisan/dogmatic ideology into someone--often at a young age since children tend to be more impressionable, but there isn't really an age limit on it.

and the two can go hand-in-hand, like, you could be indoctrinated into an ideology that provides more potential for grooming to happen (whether by discouraging speaking out about the issue, or creating a strict hierarchy where certain people can't be questioned), but they're different things okay

sweetsweetemo
tavina-writes

People have real issues understanding why the absence of romance and sexual desire is such a big deal. "No one bothers you over your sexual orientation! You're basically a straight person!" No wrong. The older you get the more your life is considered a failure for failing to find a life partner and get your 2.5 kids in.

Like people make fun of middle aged women for not getting married or being divorced or "always the bridesmaid never the bride" and all like "oh she's desperate! No one wants her! Old maid!' but they become straight up hostile and upset when you tell them you never want to date.

Being unpartnered after your mid twenties is just like "oh what's wrong with you" and "don't worry you'll find your guy" "aren't you afraid of being alone" "who will take care of you" "you're running out of time to have kids" and no matter what you are or aren't people straight up don't understand that you don't want them.

oodlenoodleroodle
iloveyou9

image
evilkitten3

context according to instagram:

image
image
image
image

original image from the magazine:

image
grovedg

Found a scan of this issue on the Internet Archive (it's the back cover). This scan is 4000x6000 for all your high resolution needs!

image
pomme-poire-peche

The caption reads: "Defeated by roses. Near Turin's Lingotto station, along a lonely path, Miss Guida Concetta Rinino, 28 years old, who was bringing a nice bunch of roses to a relative, was accosted by an unknown young man. The young woman, rather than losing heart, defended herself with extraordinary energy, using the bunch of flowers as a weapon. So it was that the scoundrel, his face all scratched up, had to flee. (Drawing by Walter Molino.)"

teaboot

Incredible. At a distance I understand how the woman might appear to be the abuser and the man the sympathetic victim, but the second you zoom into the man’s face the pink-cheeked rage- not remorse, or rejection, or embarrassment- not heartbreak or despair- but RAGE- the deeper story speaks itself into your suspicions.

And the bit where they’re HER roses? Almost a relief, but also sadder, as she will arrive at whatever event without them, or with them destroyed.

Do you think when the righteous anger and anxiety and annoyance fade, when she arrives at her destination- will her loved ones applaud her? Will she be proud? Will her hands shake? Will she walk home with company from then out, and for how long?

In this moment, she is provoked into anger. Anger is good- it appears strong. But look at his face. Would you put it past him to linger there after dark, in case she returns alone?

What story will HE tell, of ‘I was perfectly polite, but she didn’t even give me a chance- women like that, they’d swoon for a jerk in a heartbeat, but kind and flattering men like me?…”

I love this piece. It paints both stories while illustrating the power dynamics and struggles at play. This should be shown in art classes

deadgenerations
deadgenerations

as someone who remembers the patriot act and all the conversation surrounding it, it's a bit... of an experience being able to remember how many people pointed out that Terrorist was a politically convenient term which could be used to dehumanise and legally strip the rights from someone and that eventually all this would be used internally. and the response was 'nuh uh only browns with funny headgear are terrorists'. and then two decades of 'fighting age males' being blown to pieces at weddings because they might have, maybe, looked at a terrorist once. A week ago a head of state is black bagged in the middle of the night by the US for being a 'narcoterrorist'. And now an unarmed, random woman - white, citizen - is gunned down by jackboot thugs and before her body is cold she is, of course, a domestic terrorist.

If you are reading this, you need to know that the moment the US state needs to kidnap you, the moment a drone pilot decides you're in the wrong place, the moment you are bleeding to death on the sidewalk, you will be a Terrorist. Because anything can be done to a Terrorist.