About

The Plutocrat - Kahlil Gibran

In my wanderings I once saw upon an island a man-headed, iron-hoofed monster who ate of the earth and drank of the sea incessantly. And for a long while I watched him.

Then I approached him and said, “Have you never enough; is your hunger never satisfied and your thirst never quenched?”

And he answered saying, “Yes, I am satisfied, nay, I am weary of eating and drinking; but I am afraid that tomorrow there will be no more earth to eat and no more sea to drink.”

Random Post
Recommend

Search for content

atomicsocialist:

akagoldfish:

yesysabella:

Oh how I love Fiona and her lovely comics.

I’ve blogged this before commenting on how obnoxious I find it’s puritanical subtext and the fact it’s message is indistinguishable from those peddled in Christian-based abstinence propaganda, but it now occurs to me that at least one of the couples depicted is not biologically capable of procreating with each other.
Thus the message makes no fucking sense what so ever; it reduces sex to mere procreation, yet the couple can’t procreate, so is it saying transpeople shouldn’t have sex at all or… something else? I really don’t know the answer; I’m not sure the person who drew it knows the answer either.
So not only is it obnoxious, it’s also internally nonsensical.

It is quite surreal really to see this sort of pro abstinence propaganda come from the other side. 

I think that people are projecting what they like on this image: if you wanted to find a pro-abstinence message, it’s there. If it was meant for advocating relationships with sterile people, people could see that. Myself, I think it’s about “you don’t have to have kids if you don’t want to.” Sometimes (not always), people see what they want to see. I think this is one of those cases, so “propaganda” is not really the right word.

atomicsocialist:

akagoldfish:

yesysabella:

Oh how I love Fiona and her lovely comics.

I’ve blogged this before commenting on how obnoxious I find it’s puritanical subtext and the fact it’s message is indistinguishable from those peddled in Christian-based abstinence propaganda, but it now occurs to me that at least one of the couples depicted is not biologically capable of procreating with each other.

Thus the message makes no fucking sense what so ever; it reduces sex to mere procreation, yet the couple can’t procreate, so is it saying transpeople shouldn’t have sex at all or… something else? I really don’t know the answer; I’m not sure the person who drew it knows the answer either.

So not only is it obnoxious, it’s also internally nonsensical.

It is quite surreal really to see this sort of pro abstinence propaganda come from the other side. 

I think that people are projecting what they like on this image: if you wanted to find a pro-abstinence message, it’s there. If it was meant for advocating relationships with sterile people, people could see that. Myself, I think it’s about “you don’t have to have kids if you don’t want to.” Sometimes (not always), people see what they want to see. I think this is one of those cases, so “propaganda” is not really the right word.

(Source: fionafix-it)


(via nixonplumbingco)