Victorian Tumblr Themes

c-a-bergamot said: You don't worship the Queen? Are you a French infiltrated in the UK?

This is the most potent of insults ever to be bestowed upon me; I am generally quite a strong person but this was so venomous that I’m basically in anaphylactic shock. My loyalties are perfectly in order, thank you very much. While I do not worship her majesty, I have the appropriate amounts of awe and reverence due.

But, really!



beautynorder said: culturistjack

I would be a big fan of Jack if he weren’t from the North, but what can one do… he makes up for it by being British through and through so I almost forgive him.

I think he’s very good at what he does and I’m not really sure how he’s managed to do it all!

Furthermore, I am quite frankly glad to have another strong British conservative voice on Tumblr. Not, uh, that Americans are particularly grating, though…

servusmariae said: Hey I saw your comment about "50 percent of the reason why I don't worship God." That's an interesting point. In my experience, worshiping God's really just been a process of viewing my life with Him and working with him to make it better. If it wasn't for our lives, we wouldn't know that God is even real! But what do you think?

Um I wasn’t being serious. I don’t worship god because I don’t worship anything, least of all something metaphysically impossible in this reality. To worship something applies a mystical value to it; to see it for something more than what it is. And I strive never to do such a thing.

Anonymous said: The problem with the term "POC" is that it apparently makes people who are ethnically diverse but have lighter skin tones feel misrepresented. Sometimes people who are Indian, African, Hispanic, Middle-Eastern, or of another ethnicity that usually has people with a darker skin tone are born with light complexions and look white, so they are not white, but also not a "person of color". Personally, I hate how SJWs use the term "POC" to lump all non-white people into one group.

But the colours that we use to denote people’s skin tone is not meant to be interpreted literally. Nobody is actually black or white. The “colours” are really used to denote something else. Nobody who is middle eastern and has pale skin looks “white” in the sense of western European.

Anyway, it just seems disconnected that people get annoyed by using the term “Person of colour” but not annoyed by referring to people as actual colours.

I do get the whites vs non-whites issue though.



Why is there a movement in the west against the pressure encouraging women to look good when men literally have their genitalia cut apart against their will because of cosmetic reasons. When was the last time someone cut a piece of a baby girl off because they thought it looked better and people just accepted it?

First and foremost fuck you, and here’s why:

(I’d ask if you’d ever suffered through sucking an uncircumcised dick but for the purposes of entertaining your ridiculously stupid argument, I won’t mention aesthetics from here on out.) 

1) Female genital mutilation and male circumcision are two very different things and only someone who was nearly mentally invalid would compare them. Female circumcision removes the pleasure from sex for the woman. That is the purpose. It is not a medical procedure, it is abuse. 

2) Male circumcision is a medical procedure with the following benefits (which for the record, every single respectable medical association on earth will tell you vastly outweigh the risks):

  • Ease of Hygiene.
  • 10 fold reduction in the risk of UTI
  • Decreased risk of the transmission of STDs including but not limited to HIV.
  • Prevention of penile problems related to a forskin that is too tight. (phimosis and paraphimosis)
  • Reduced risk of penile cancer and of cervical cancer in female partners.

In fact, one cost benefit analysis revealed that if the rate of circumcision in Europe was reduced by 10%, it would cost 4.4 billion dollars in additional healthcare over 10 years. 

Moreover, half of uncircumcised males will, at some point in their lives, contract an adverse medical condition related to their forskin and 1 in 3 will contract a UTI related to their forskin.

And of course, scientific evidence indicates that it does not reduce sexual pleasure. Male circumcision is a benefit to the patient, not a hindrance like female circumcision. I can assure you that if there was a simple, minimally invasive procedure with comparable benefit for females that it would be in common use and that it would be equally as recommended.

I, for one, am glad that my penis was, as you would say, “cut apart.”

3) There is no pressure against things that encourage anyone to look good. There is, however, a pressure against a culture that promotes an unhealthy environment for young children. That includes an environment when art is used to destroy the self esteem of young children. Now, this culture, which is incidentally encouraged by the flagrantly anti-woman right, has resulted in the death of many who, beat down for years, adopted anorexia/bulimia as a lifestyle.

4) More importantly, there is a movement against the kind of culture that promotes the idea that one individual can sway and make judgement over another. That is to say that a man cannot tell a woman how to dress. Men do not own women. Women do not own other women. Individuals own themselves and deserve to be treated as human beings not property. 

Don’t for a fucking second compare a medical procedure with legitimate health benefits to female genital mutilation. And don’t even pretend that the pressure put on women by men is acceptable. Don’t justify rape culture.

Jesus, MRA’s are such entitled dipshits. 


If you want to win an argument, don’t start off by saying “fuck you.” It really doesn’t work.

The fact that you thought that how pleasurable either of us find fellating an uncircumcised penis is relevant really demonstrates the failure to grasp the seriousness of this issue.

I never mentioned female genital mutilation, but of course you brought it up in the attempt to score cheap points. There are procedures to reduce the size of the labia, which is comparable to male circumcision where female genital mutilation is not. My point was that everyone would be horrified by a practice which reduced labia sizes for baby girls, but are perfectly fine with the equivalent in men.

As for the health benefits, hygiene is really a non issue. Uncircumcised penises are really not difficult to clean. If they were particularly prone to dirt built ups we would not have them.

To assert that circumcision reduces the risk of STIs is ridiculous enough, but to reduce the risk of cervical cancer is just bizarre. Where is the logic in that??

The rates of UTIs are 1 in 3? More like 1 in 2000. All this false information would seem like you’re just trying to impose a political agenda instead of promoting the truth…

I agree that men do not own women. If this premise takes you as far as “this means that men should not tell women how to look or act” then why does it not take you as far as “this means that male babies should have their genitalia sliced apart because it looks better that way”

I am not sure how putting pressure on women to look good is encouraging rape culture? Do you think that wanting women to look after themselves is rape?

Probably the worst assumption that you’ve made out of the great many here is that I am an MRA. They’re worse than feminists…

I’m glad that you’re happy with your circumcised penis, but I would be even gladder if you had had that circumcision by your own choice.




Why is there a movement in the west against the pressure encouraging women to look good when men literally have their genitalia cut apart against their will because of cosmetic reasons. When was the last time someone cut a piece of a baby girl off…

The parents consent to it. Parents decide for children usually. I read and hear people saying it’s unhealthy and I want to know if these people are going to call my parents assholes. I don’t think it was a religious thing, not that that’s an excuse. But like, I want to know why my parents got me circumcised if it’s more detrimental than healthy. Like I wish I hadn’t have heard that people say it’s bad because now I feel like I’m less of a person because my penis is less.

I know that the parents consent to it, but that doesn’t make it right. Parent’s should be able to consent to having their children’s genitalia sliced apart.

The first reason that it is bad is because of the principle of non-consent.

Secondly, the risk of infection from circumcisions is higher than you might think.

It doesn’t affect your value as a person at all. Even if you had decided to have it done at a later stage it wouldn’t, because then you would have consented to it. But it should be your choice.

Anonymous said: Hello craig! I believe in advocating intelligence information and facts. On your last post against circumcision while it is perfectly fine not to have the operation , it purpose is not only for aesthetic reasons , but actually commonly is used to reduce the risk of spreading HIV and used as an operation for men w/ uncomfortable medical conditions You can find this in various legit websites but instead of putting down feminism why cant you try to work together to achieve equality and peace c:

Hello, Anon.

I know not all circumcisions are done for aesthetic purposes. The point of my post was to highlight that aesthetic circumcision for male babies is a legal and accepted practice, but if it were to happen to female babies there would be mass outrage.

I have no problem with circumcisions done for medical purposes, but I must stress that the risk of HIV is not reduced by circumcision. This is a grave fallacy.

Finally, if I wished to achieve equality(which I don’t) feminists would be the last people that I would ever turn to.


Rape blaming



"We shouldn’t blame the victims of rape for what has happened to them."

Fine, I agree. There are very few people in serious popular discourse who don’t.

But that doesn’t mean that we should then go on to blame every single man for the actions of…

As someone who believes sexual offence to “simply” be harassment, you have just become one of the dangerous men that you’re so desperate to separate yourself from. As of the 2011 census there are 28.5m women in England and Wales. That’s a whopping 7.1m sexual offence victims.

Also, who are men to judge whether or not they are dangerous to women? Yes, men who have not raped can still be dangerous. As a 17 year old girl, I personally feel unsafe around men as I have been harassed by them from a young age. The odds are stacked against women’s safety, and it is unthinkable to ask them to abandon precaution to merely protect the feelings of some butthurt men.


I am a dangerous man because I think making a lewd comment is significantly less serious than rape? I really am failing to see the logic there.

"Who are men to judge whether they are are dangerous or not?"- I don’t understand the question. It seems to be resting on the presupposition that men and women cannot both reach objective judgements. Are you implying that there is something fundamental in the way every man and every woman’s brain functions to the extent that one cannot actually understand certain concepts? That doesn’t sound very much like equality to me.

Men who have not raped can still be dangerous, but this is redundant to say. Everyone can be dangerous. Do you know who posed the most risk to your life? Your mother. Yes, that’s right, the person statistically most likely to kill you is your mother. Are you afraid of all mothers?

When you are irrationally afraid of 50% of the population, then this is paranoia and you probably need therapy to help you overcome your emotional issues from “being harassed from a young age.”


Piotr Sonnewend
If you like this, maybe you want to have a look at my own art:
Tumblr | Website | Facebook | Pinterest | Instagram


Piotr Sonnewend

If you like this, maybe you want to have a look at my own art:

Tumblr | Website | Facebook | Pinterest | Instagram


Consider this- Jim Carrey isn’t and will never be funny.

The Grinch though…