f.haeder.net

T-Shirt bought a few weeks ago

I have now decided to picture myself (and I currently still wear it) with a # I have bough a few weeks ago from # shop:

Image/photo

# #
I forgot to mention that I wear this when I do #OpenStreetMap :-) So yes, I take that on street. I was already asked to take selfie with me by 2 young girls, on first day. But most people seem to "ignore" or just not notice it?
Hypolite Petovan friendica (AP)
Ha ha ha, awesome!
Got my first very good critics (explained) about it and I take it down ("offline") because the replacement may display the woman's gender as low-ordered. I can deeply understand that in my heart, so it will wait in cabinet.
I met her (with her boyfriend) at a #GoaTrance party in #Dortmund called #Nibirii and it was my 2nd time I went there. There she talk to me openly that of course the female gender shall be very beautiful and never low-ordered to me which I fully agree with. When I meet her again, I will tell her that. :-) And that I wish all good luck and love for her relationship.

And maybe I get feminists against me ...
Hypolite Petovan friendica (AP)
I still don't understand the relationship between this shirt and low-ordering the female gender.
It is because of the replacement (of the word vegan/vegetarian) as I remember her word correctly. BTW: I have now a sweatshirt ALT+F4 now what identifies me (I feel fine with it) much better.
Hypolite Petovan friendica (AP)
My personal contention with the shirt is that vulva isn’t as accessible as meat, for very good reasons, so you couldn’t replace one with the other even with the best intentions towards animals, even past the provocative nature of the described sex act.
Exactly that is why I took it "offline". :-) I love the vulva (including vagina) and fully respect it. Still I got smiles from women, I was asked about vegetarianism/veganism (I transit there ATM) and got a selfie with 2 young girls.
I have now a better one: ALT+F4, no sexy thing that might be misjudged. And I can identify myself with it much better. BTW: It is embroidered for just ~50$ including a black sweatshirt.
@Hypolite Petovan Meanwhile I bought a pullover and still some people told me it is down-ordering: "Real men don't wear pink, they eat it. (If you know what I mean)" And again, I cannot resist, I bought another one: Free / Libre Cunnilingus - As it needs to be freed from prejudice and bias, like it is gross, a lesbian-only thing and that it belongs into foreplay. This is all false, we should no longer be prude about it. Details # #

Ah, too late! I should have included the hashtag into it!
"TReat your girl right." (While TR is inverted and other letters are normally printed).
Well, I have a problem with "your girl" in this shirt, the idea of possession and women's infantilization. Notice how women say "my man" but few men say "my women" in favor of "my girl"?

I understand your point with all those shirts, but ultimately I don't think it's going to move any feminist line, it's just good-hearted provocation but nothing more.
I'm not a feminist, so why should I care? I respect women, want to have oppression stopped and equality for them. And I find the slogans okay with me, even the very first one. Me and my girlfriend has agreed to that we can say "my boyfriend" and "my girlfriend" as we don't mean it belonging to each as a bought property or item but more as a romantic partner. She is indeed my girlfriend, as no other is and shall be with her while she is with me (we both are monogamous, same applies to me, I don't go to e.g. hookers/prostitutes as I found that cheating while she is there in her home-country all alone).
I respect women, want to have oppression stopped and equality for them.
This is feminism, which makes you a feminist out of your own words. It isn't a bad word, you don't have to be a militant to be feminist, nor be as analytic as I am with the material you provided me.

The key word in you reply is "Me and my girlfriend [...] agreed to". What you do with your partner is entirely fine and is none of my business as long as you agree on it. However the messages on your shirts are a one-way street, they are a sort of imposition on the reader, you can't discuss it an agree on it with anyone potentially reading it. That's what is making them hazardous.
Roland Häder doesn't like this.
Nope, I'm not a feminist. I just use common sense to archive the same goals without being linked to feminism. Please don't think polarized here, being or not being a feminist.
Besides. do you want womanfriend and manfriend instead of girlfriend and boyfriend instead?
Well, it stil conveys the masculinist view that pink is a necessary feminine color. For me it is the same problem with any slogan on the model of "Make X Y again". Despite not being about the Trump 2016 campaign at all, it still reminds of it and as such can be upsetting.

The entire concept of foreplay is sexist anyway, so I'm not sure where a message saying that cunnilingus doesn't belong to foreplay goes since nothing "belongs" to foreplay as it is a toxic male-centric concept. It is well-meaning but it doesn't go deep enough for my taste.
True about this. Still "eating pink" is referenced here as all vaginas/vulvae are indeed pink from inside.
I won't think that foreplay is sexist, it is for making both partners very arousal and that is in my view the main purpose of it. Okay, as I can see, people will always have something against anything. :-/ No bad to you, honestly. :-)
What in sex isn't meant to arouse both partners?
This is some sort of foreplay:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/Imminent_Foreplay.jpg - "A woman engages in foreplay by removing her partner's clothes."
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/b/be/20161204142353%21Nipping_the_Nape.png - "Foreplay by kissing a woman's back"

This just gives a pre-idea (in my opinion) about what is coming next, starting out of nowhere with love-making often results in lesser satisfying intercourse (including oral).

I find the Wikipedia article about it very explaining what foreplay is: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreplay
My point is that removing the other person's clothes or kissing their bare back already is love-making, there's no meaningful distinction, you already are having sex.

Not all cloth removing by someone else is part of sex, of course, but you know when it is or not.

This kind of distinction is meaningful in evaluating the gravity of a sexual assault. In some laws penetration is required to constitute rape but not in all.

But otherwise this distinction isn't meaningful between you and your partner. You are love-making once you've exchanged consent, implicitly or explicitly, and for as long as this consent lasts. I would include cuddling naked after either partner orgasm in love-making as well, it isn't "afterplay" because there would be no penetration involved.
Foreplay can also start 24h in advance, by sending erotic text messages to each other. Sure, there are maybe some countries seeing foreplay as sexual assault or even rape if not wanted/consented into.

At some point I can follow that foreplay/after-play is some form of love-making. Still I like to have it seen as it is: foreplay or before-sex-play and after-sex-play. It is to make you feel aroused (women mostly need longer for it, like I wrote, sending erotic text messages, also nice to males, right?). Sure kisses on your bare skin, especially in the erotic zones of it (neck, butt cheeks, foot, if into it and so on) gives you the feeling of being loved and it could be considered as love-making to some people. Aborting here, right before the actual (main) act starts, like sucking penis, licking pussy or vaginal/anal penetration, would be a huge cool-down for many people, because it was just a pre-sex act, warming the couple up into full arousal and then shifting (not switching) smoothly over to the main act of the whole love-making session.

And yes. foreplay/after-play is without any penetration or stimulation (Fellatio/Cunnilingus/Anilingus), it is for warm-up and cool-down phase and those phases may have no boundaries, everyone can decide how long it should be and what is actually needed to be done to become aroused.
I guess feminazis (not confused with feminists) demolish our erotic world, controlling our thoughts because if you control language, you control thought.
"polarizing", 'feminazi", "if you control language, you control thought", I feel like I'm talking with a centre-right propaganda video through you and I couldn't care less about these provocative and wrong talking points.

So I'm going to leave a few parting words before bowing out:
  • The specific idea developed in Georges Orwell's 1984 that controlling language is controlling thought is utterly wrong. Language is what people are making of it, and thought is otherwise influenced by a number of other things, like power dynamics, feelings and culture, language probably being pretty low on the list. We come up with words to describe novel thoughts all the time, so language hardly constraints thought.
  • Feminism is explicitly about "respect [ing]women, want [ing]to have oppression stopped and equality for them". Any additional meaning you tacked on that word shows your thoughts about feminism have been negatively influenced by something or someone else. Your denial of being a feminist sounds like someone saying "I eat meat but I'm not a carnivore because it's too polarizing".
  • Nobody is actually forcing you to use gender-neutral language, recognize foreplay as sexist, or not wear your provocative shirts. However if you feel bad because this kind of ideas are just floating around, then you probably have some internal reckoning to do.
  • Whatever you do with other people and with women specifically is fine and your own business as long as boundaries have been clearly set.
Feminazi is an alias for the more extreme/radical offshoot of feminism. I know very well that it (feminism) is about stopping oppression and wanting equality for males. I still don't want to be labeled or categorized as feminist only because of I respect women and want equality for all humans and oppression all together.

I don't want to have female oppression, I don't want to have male oppression, any one of not being heterosexual shall also not be oppressed. This is what I want and that goes far beyond only being against oppression of woman (which is good but still not enough). Let's end oppression all together!

Polarized thinking is like this: If you are not for (positive) feminism, you must be a woman-hater. This is thinking in two colors, binary states while life is never binary or black/white or red/green.

Yes, my T-Shirt may provoke some people, That is fine, at least they talk and think about the topic at hand: # Which is is so important to nearly all women. I have been to a sexual consultant and she (not he) said it, that most women want it, they can relax, be themselves, enjoy the pleasure given to then. Exactly that is what I love so much about it. :-)
Ha ha! Nice # females of course!
#tpzo
I know what "feminazi" stands for, I still thinks it's inappropriate to use that term.

I'll use my comparison with food diet again: you are saying you are an omnivore, and you don't like to be called a carnivore. But you eat meat, which constitutes being a carnivore. You don't eat only meat, granted, but "carnivore" is still more accurate to describe what you're doing than "not being a carnivore".

Being a feminist doesn't mean you aren't also anti-racist and LGBT-friendly. But explicitly "not being a feminist" has a special negative meaning that doesn't even approach what you are describing about being against all oppressions. Just take the label, it accurately describes a part of what you claim to stand for, and it will occur less confusion than rejecting it altogether.
I still don't want to be labeled or categorized. This is what social therapists warn about, that humans start to categorize other humans. Just be a human. And I'm ~80% # and ~20% # because I mostly eat vegetarian and very less vegan (still I like vegan a lot). But I stopped eating meat. I could eat it by just entering a Kebab shop and order myself one. But I don't want it. :-)
It's fine if you don't want to be labeled or categorized but you can't prevent other people from doing so. Categorization isn't inherently bad, it's what people do with it that can be bad. But then it isn't categorization anymore, it's discrimination.
Yes, true. And discrimination goes in both directions. I think I bring back the first T-Shirt and pullover at some point and let them criticize me as much as they want. Just as I said, at least they talk and think about it. :-) Mission accomplished!
Here you go!
Then how should we call a # instead? Real feminists are clearly against that those people are being called feminists, too. So 3rd-wave-feminists? Or man-hating-lesbians? Well, not all really hate men and not all are lesbians despite being both at the same time.

So how should we call them then? Okay, cellular entities. ;-)
Just don't call them anything. Please follow your own desire not to be labeled or categorized and extend this courtesy to other people.