bisexual culture is being very specific with the men you’re interested in but having absolutely no type when it comes to girls because they’re all so beautiful
Consider this: you might be a lesbian dealing with compulsory heterosexuality and internalized lesbophobia
^^^^^ so important. That’s exactly how I was before I accepted I was a lesbian. I was very specific about the men I could date. So specific that no man could possibly tick all the boxes.
i’m not a fucking lesbian leave me alone
^^^— Bisexual problems. People insisting you must be a lesbian even though you just have specific tastes in dudes
^ so perfectly this.
and I mean, no wonder we’re specific about guys, have you seen them? most of them can barely dress like they give a shit or do basic skin cleansing so as to avoid pimples. and how hard is it to hide your burps in public? wtf. and I mean give me some fucking length of hair to touch or grab or whatever, wtf is this soldier haircut everywhere like nope.
but girls? girls,
god let bisexuals be bisexual in peace
I don’t understand why everyone got so pissy all of a sudden. The second and third reblogs in this thread were just trying to be helpful. Yes, you’re bisexual. These lovely blogs were just trying to offer some advice. No one was trying to attack your sexuality, honey. I’m sure that was not their intentions.
A lot of lesbians struggle with this inner turmoil, and these blogs were just trying to offer insight on something they’ve already gone through.
That’s what the text post button is for. No one got time for you to add onto a bisexuals party that they aren’t a bisexual like you know their shit. Fuck out.
I mean I can’t imagine why lesbians coming onto a bisexual’s post to say “Are you sure you’re not just a repressed idiot who is controlled by societal forces and just hasn’t yet recognized that actually you don’t like men at all” could possibly be construed as a negative thing. It’s not like gays and lesbians have been saying to bisexuals for fifty years that we don’t exist and we’re just confused and that if we weren’t dumbasses in the thrall of societal forces that they, personally, are enlightened enough to have overcome, we’d realize that actually we aren’t sexually attracted to the opposite-sex lovers we’ve had in our lives at all.
It’s definitely true that some gays and lesbians went through a period of thinking they were bi. It’s also true that literally every single person who explains anything with the term “compulsory heterosexuality” is basically saying “you are either too dumb, too repressed or too conformist to recognize your true desires.” If we had an acknowledgement that it might be a perfectly natural thing for one to understand our own desires better as one gets older and more mature, without the implication that a younger person who hasn’t yet recognized their own sexuality in full is “repressed” or somehow under the control of society in the way that more enlightened gays and lesbians are not, that would be okay, but there is at this point far too much societal baggage from gays and lesbians telling bisexuals shit that essentially postulates that we don’t exist.
Also, given that women perform beauty as a social requirement and men do not, how does any feminist not instantly recognize that almost anyone with any attraction to women at all is likely to perceive more women as beautiful than men?
Fun fact: “there are many more pretty women than men” is exactly what will happen if you just simply mix in equal amounts typical straight male sexuality:
Remember when Pres. Carter was pressured into giving up his peanut farm by republicans because it was looked at as a conflict of interest with him being the president and all but still having his own business. They even investigated him for half a year to see if there were any questionable financials within his peanut growing operation. compare that to what we’re currently dealing with…crazy.
Today a 27-year-old man I was taking care of in the hospital asked if I could help him get boosted up in his hospital bed because, and I quote, “You look strong. Like, you look like you could take a motherfucker out.”
That is the most flattering thing that a patient has ever said to me, and I’m counting the little old lady who told me my eyebrows were beautiful, and the very deaf old German man who yelled at me that I was “WONDERFUL!!! MADE BY GOD TO BE A NURSE!!!!!”
it makes me happy that people appreciate you because you’re pretty darn great
Boozhoo (hello), my name is Ken, I am a disabled Ojibwe artist from northern Wisconsin. I am writing this post because I am having a hard time making ends meet and any donations I could possibly receive at this time would be greatly appreciated. Recent events have left my bank account depleted and my cupboards bare, I have some food but it will not last and I still do not know how I will cover all the utility bills.
I do have PayPal, that is really the best way to donate at this time, the email I use for that is: baapimakwa@gmail.com, or you can click here.
Miigwech (thank you) everyone. Working hard to at least get caught up and still coming up short, every little bit helps.
This is a simple question, but it ties to a huge theoretical discussion in Andean Archaeology. So…
First let’s narrow the question to something more tangible. What does visual art mean in the pre-Columbian Andes? Art historians most typically focus on three traditions: pottery, textiles, and sculpture.
Textiles can preserve for thousands of years if the environment is both dry and unexposed enough, and we have a few examples of textiles from the desert Norte Chico region. Cotton was actually one of the first cultivated crops on Peru’s north coast, alongside other utilitarian plants like gourds. Though we don’t have elaborately decorated textiles like we see in later periods in the same area, it’s no stretch to assume they existed: a few of the known samples retain traces of dye. Additionally, the Chinchorro culture on the south coast mummified their dead with dyed and embroidered fabrics thousands of years before the Norte Chico centers coalesced.
Ceramics preserve much longer than textiles in a variety of conditions. However, the Norte Chico sites date to the the Late Preceramic (or Archaic) period, that is, they predate the earliest known pottery in the Andes. So much (some might say too much) of our archaeological methods relate to ceramics in that this hinders both our ability to identify “visual art” and our understanding of many larger sociocultural phenomena. (“But how could they have had pyramids without ceramics? I know my Civ V tech tree!” more on that later…)
Stone sculpture and rock art is likewise unknown during the Late Archaic. The earliest examples of free-standing lithic art are at Cerro Sechin, whose monuments are covered in images of disembodied heads, captives, and warriors. The site is not far from the Norte Chico, but dates to the end of the Archaic period around 1500 BC. The most notable early lithic traditions, such as that at Chavin, are associated with powerful centralized hierarchies and single-event constructions. Chavin’s temple was modified and expanded over time, but in distinct sections. Most Late Archaic monuments were built over time in a series of small building and feasting events. Any authority was ephemeral and constantly needed to be reasserted- carved monoliths would not be part of such a process.
Thus the quick and boring answer to your question is “We haven’t found any.” Any further reason presupposes that they “should” have visual art- and why should they? The obvious answer is “Because everyone else with monumental architecture, textiles, government, and music did!” In any other answer I’d explain why that’s dumb and move on. But the scholarship around the Norte Chico is a special case- so it’s your lucky day! Here’s CoCo’s History of Archaeological Theory 101TM
Thinking that the Norte Chico should have visual art is a relic of early anthropologists that sought to categorize societies into progressive evolutionary stages based on their technological achievements. Lewis Henry Morgan’s Ancient Society most famously defined three main stages of Savagery, Barbarism, and Civilization: Norte Chico would be an easy fit for this definition of Civilization. As anthropologists started actually doing research, they realized this was crap: cultures didn’t develop the same across the globe. This new cultural-historical school replaced Morgan’s evolutionary thought at the turn of the century. It focused on defining and describing specific cultures at specific points in time, assuming archaeology could do little more. In the ‘60s archaeologists started flirting with these fancy things called “science” and “technology.” Maybe, they thought, this New Archaeology was capable of much more than making up cultures to give potsherds to. Maybe, even, it could describe process across time! Thus was born Processual Archaeology. While archaeology was forever changed by the new emphasis on scientific data collection, the Processualists, like Leslie White and Kent Flannery, also (re)introduced a neo-evolutionary perspective. Instead of classifying “savages” and “barbarians,” they focused on the development of sociopolitical complexity from bands to tribes to chiefdoms to states. It avoided the pejorative terminology and sense of moral progress associated with Morgan, but it continued a fallacy of similarity. Adhering to categories of tribes and chiefdoms caused people to look for tribes and chiefdoms. Once you’ve identified a chiefdom, you can then extrapolate other things about how that society worked… except that’s not how cultures work. Once more, in the ‘80s, younger archaeologists had to remind everyone that cultures were unique and special in their own way. That paradigm shift is now so long ago that calling yourself “post-processual” is passé.
Academic discussion of the Late Archaic in the Norte Chico region is contentious because the preeminent scholars remain staunch processualists. Elsewhere in the Andes, archaeologists are asking what critics call “microfocused” questions of social identity, power formation, social collapse, foodways, trade networks, craft production, etc. These are essentially synchronic questions, that is, ones that look at interactions between different co-existing groups, with descriptive answers. Processualism looks at diachronic questions, that is, ones that compare the same group at different times, with categorical answers. The literature is filled with words like “emergence” and “complexity.” To a critic like myself, and most anyone else who attended school in the 80s or later, the scholars at Caral, Supe, Cerro Lampay, and other Late Archaic sites are not looking to describe the sites on their own terms but to determine if they are a “civilization” or “complex” yet. A 2007 paper by Haas and Creamer, for instance, was rightly met with criticism from many Andeanists, and has since distanced them from working in the region. Ostensibly the study hoped to inform our knowledge of “where Andean civilization began,” itself a question post-processualists would never ask. It was limited, however, to an extensive survey of the Norte Chico and neighboring regions to collect soil core samples and calculate the dates for various sites. From just the settlement distribution and dates, the authors hoped to rewrite the sociopolitical development of the region and identify which things were “complex,” and maybe even which groups of sites were a “civilization.” The authors do use the term “complex” self-critically, but still hold to the idea that:
the civilizations of the six world areas [Mesopotamia, Egypt, Incia, China, Mesoamerica, and the Andes] underwent similar processes of change and eventually converged on similar levels of cultural complexity, but their paths and histories were unique
Just how two areas, let alone six, can have unique histories but similar processes of change is beyond me. The authors follow this with a brief survey of what the process is: hunter gatherer -> agriculturalists -> cities -> multi-site polities. That there even is a unidirectional process at all is questionable; that the process has distinct stages even more so. As I’ve mentioned, once you put something in a category the tendency is to look for things in it that other members of the category have. This approach has tainted research in the Norte Chico. People see monuments and assume there must have been some form of centralized power. If there is power, then the society must be later in that process, and probably has other things like organized religion or specialized labor. But if you look for the people or site that had that power, you’ll most likely find it- even if other intensive excavations don’t fit with your model of centralized power. Yay confirmation bias.
So that’s the can of worms your question can open up.
TL;DR They didn’t have visual art because we haven’t found any. There’s no reason to suppose they should have had any. Unfortunately, most archaeologists don’t like the ones working in the region because their theory and methods are 55 years out of date.
Urocyon's Jaunts 2.0 
You must be logged in to post a comment.