Cybering has gotten a bad name in the history of the internet, leading people to remember ‘i tuch ur thigh’ style roleplay, done with the explicit purpose of getting aroused and, finally, getting off. There was a thrill that came with the birth of the internet – free, no-strings-attached, talking with strangers about your most intimate desires and then having the ability to disappear, change your user handle, and never have to deal with them ever again. It was flirting with the idea of danger in a protected place.

People were at last able to explore their deepest desires in a safe, free environment and since typing classes were mostly thought to be something only secretaries did, there was a lot of really bad grammar and spelling errors. Pair this with the fact that a lot of teenagers, budding into maturity, decided to explore their deepest desires, and you got a lot of, what some people term, below average roleplay. Bad roleplay.

So do people simply use the term “erotic roleplay” to separate themselves from this idea of terrible grammar and spelling and poorly thought out metaphors for a woman’s erogenous regions? I know most people who say they ERP deem themselves above average roleplayers, consider their work to hold certain literary qualities and richer descriptions, and use sex as part of a ‘character development’ tool.

Is this what defines erotic roleplayers? Are we all writers just wishing to flesh out our characters in a more exploratory manner? I don’t deny that I think some very important character development can take place before, during or after sex. For example:

-Spoilers from HBO’S Game of Thrones-

When Danyreas first was raped by her husband, and the second time when she told him she would be on top. This is a HUGE point for character development for both characters and leads them down a path that wouldn’t be as obvious without that one, simple scene. Suddenly, she wasn’t a slave girl to be raped. She was his wife, and she was going to make him respect her.

Another point that differentiates people’s perceived notion of cybering versus ERP is the general absence of first person. No longer is it “I touch your body softly”, but is instead “He touches her body softly.”

First person roleplay tends to make people uncomfortable, as though it were no longer fantasy but more realistic, and more amateur, at the same time. Then does it become automatically erotic roleplay when you step outside yourself and play the role of someone else? What if, say, the character is exactly like you in every manner but with a different name and setting? How many people are willing to ERP sexual situations they, themselves, do not enjoy with a partner that doesn’t enjoy it as well? What of those who flirt with their roleplay partner when not roleplaying, or compliment one another on how arousing their words are?

The strict definitions that people cling to (i.e. that erotic roleplay should be strictly about the writing with arousal coming secondary or not at all, that erotic roleplay shouldn’t be personal, etc.) don’t hold true for everyone, and I imagine some people take a good deal of insult with these assumptions being assigned to them. However, I suppose they’re more kind assumptions than those given to people who admit to ‘cybering’, since that automatically leads people to believe that you are a lonely male, living alone or with his mother, transmitting badly typed notes that include almost no grammar to another lonely male in the same situation.

People assume that as soon as you admit that you ERP or cyber for any reason other than ‘I have to in order to become a better writer!’ that you are somehow… lesser. I’ve met many roleplayers who I know for a fact get off on erotic roleplay but they will deny it or get offended if their partner asks if the roleplay is getting them excited. I know others who state, point blank, that they do not get aroused while roleplaying and they do it for purely literary reasons as a manner of expanding their horizons.

Overall, I feel there’s no one definition for any of the above and that, just like other sexual matters, people will fill the spectre from one end to the other. I just wish that people would be a little more honest, with others and themselves, about erotic roleplay. So many people have so much hate against people who ERP and it’s understandable why people would be shy or ashamed about admitting not only that they do it, but why they do it.

On Moon Guard (US) World of Warcraft server, there’s a large population of people who ERP, and many of them deny it. Some go so far as to harass other people they suspect of ERP, griefing them and insulting them, calling them terrible names only to find them on a low level alt trolling for some cyber booty later that day. I’ve had people insult my writing, only to reference things that happened deep in the story – it was obvious that they read the entire thing. And continued to read my stories in the future.

These people are ashamed. They have issues with sex, sexuality, and often women, and hide under the guise of moral panic, often bringing up the possibility that you might be roleplaying with someone under age, or someone of your own gender, or someone unattractive, etcetera. They have a great capacity to shame others, but it’s something I’ve tried to never bow to. I’m not ashamed of my desires, sexual or not, and I’ve been quite public about my proclivities regarding the blessed sexual textuals.

Don’t be ashamed of your sexual desires. Don’t be ashamed of your cybering habits. Don’t be ashamed of your erotic roleplay. We’re adults. We roleplay with other adults. There’s nothing wrong with sex, or talking about sex, or fantasizing about sex.

Let’s start an ERP/cybering revolution!

These are not universal truths, and have not always been truths, of course. Not long ago, men wore tights and dressed their boys in pink and let them have curly hair. Now we wonder what doing something like that will do to our children’s self esteem and several schools have banned male students from having long hair, dressing in a feminine manner, etc.

It’s a distraction to the other students, is often the reason cited for anything from disallowing piercings and tattoos, to discriminating against someone based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. It’s not up for debate that the majority of people have strong associations of masculinity and femininity and what they’re supposed to mean.

However, we live in a society where masculinity is prized over femininity.

This is especially prevalent in gaming culture. Women who play video games are scrutinized and judged based on what games they like in a way that male gamers just aren’t. Women who play first person shooters, especially women who are good at first person shooters, are seen as somehow more true gamers than, say, a woman who plays Zelda.

First person shooters are traditionally masculine, and so if a woman dominates, they’re given more respect. Or scorn, depending on how bad of a loser the men they’re playing with are – after all, it’s embarrassing to lose to a woman. Still, at least they’re a ‘real’ gamer, unlike those women that play Mario or Sims and consider themselves gamers!

The thought, of course, is that women should emulate men and male traits, but not succeed at them. Women should like sports, and games, and porn, and other male pursuits, but it shouldn’t go too far – they shouldn’t dominate. They shouldn’t beat the men at sports and games. And they certainly shouldn’t like porn more than them.

This is reflected in a lot of subtle ways throughout our society. Men who wear makeup, or dress feminine, or take up traditionally feminized sports like figure skating or ballet are typically thought of as less than other men who take up more traditional sports like football or hockey and dress and act in masculine manners.

I think part of this actually comes back to the ‘distraction’ part that we’re taught in school. Instead of being told that it’s not appropriate to allow yourself to be distracted by other people’s differences, and that being different is something to celebrate and accept, those that are different are told to conform, lessening other people’s interactions with diversity in behaviour and dress. This, of course, leads to less understanding of other people’s choices in life, and a further strengthening of the idea of how people ‘should’ act.

Now I’m a pretty laid back person, I try not to judge people, and I’m all for diversity in behaviour and interests, and I still have to say that it is odd and almost uncomfortable for me to see a male in a skirt. On the one hand I want to congratulate him for having the bravery to do it, and to embrace something he feels strong enough about to face public scorn, and on the other hand I want to thank him for making me feel uncomfortable.

Because that’s what experiencing something new makes me feel.

I feel uncomfortable walking into a new store or restaurant, or approaching a new group of people, or trying a new line of work. But the more I walk into that store or restaurant, or talk to new people, or try new work, the easier it gets next time I have to try something new. That discomfort is a good thing – it’s an important part of experiencing new things. And eventually, I feel completely comfortable with it. I want to get that way when males try feminine things, because I think femininity is great.

Masculinity is great, too. And I think that if we combine them with equal amounts of respect and appreciation, we’ll really be able to do something special in society. When we can look at a man wearing a skirt with the same amount of non-thought as when we look at a woman in pants, I’ll be so happy. Femininity shouldn’t be thought of as a lesser than when compared to masculinity – it should be thought of as a wonderful part of our humanness. Something different, but good.

Refreshing, even.

I want to finish by quoting Hugo Schwyzer, a professor on gender studies from his post about leaving the Good Men Project, because it just puts it so succinctly:

I’m a feminist because I want to create a world where men and women alike can realize their potential; I’m a feminist because I believe that our potential is not directed or confined by our chromosomes or our secondary sex organs. My penis and my Y chromosome do not destine me to be unreliable, predatory, and emotionally inarticulate. My wife’s uterus and her estrogen do not limit the horizons of her professional or athletic ambition. Feminism is, as we’ve all heard, the radical notion that women are people. But it’s also the radical notion that men are people too, complete human beings, with the same range of emotions and the same capacity for empathy and self-control as any woman.

As some of you know, I’m semi out of commission lately. I have repetitive strain in my wrists right now and I’m trying to take it easy. If I haven’t replied to your comments or emails, that’s why.

As such, I’ll be postponing blogging for a week to give me a chance to recoup.

Take care everyone, and remember to give your wrists a rest once in a while!

There was a thread earlier on Literotica talking about prostitution, why it was illegal, and what that meant. Someone said the problem was that some women didn’t have a choice but to sleep with people for food to feed their family.

How many other jobs does that describe? How many other people and families does that describe? The only difference is if you believe that sex is inherently *something*. Personal. Private.

The truth of the situation is that the biggest difference between prostitution and other jobs isn’t that people do it because they have to do it, or that some sex workers have to fork over a percentage of their pay to another person. Most of us make our employers more money than we see on our pay cheque, and the majority of us are working to survive.

The biggest difference is that prostitutes are denied the very services that would protect them from being coerced and harmed while on the job.

In companies, if there are hazards, employers are legally bound to provide a safe work space for their employees. If an employee feels harassed or threatened, there are avenues provided within the company (often through Human Resources) or through unions, and if that fails, there are government avenues or legal avenues that can be pursued.

The most visible sector of prostitutes are the ones most at risk – prostitutes that work the streets. There are countless examples of abuse of these women and men, including police soliciting sexual favours in return for not arresting a prostitute, missing persons cases that go ignored because they are a known prostitute, a disgustingly high amount of murdered or missing prostitutes, reports of police bungling the cases or not treating them seriously because of the woman’s profession or addictions, etc.

The problem isn’t with their job – it’s in how society has pushed them aside and ignored the very real issues that they face. Legalizing prostitution and correcting these issues would make everyone safer – the prostitutes, the customers, and society as a whole.

There is always a lot of infantilization of women who work in the sex industry by those outside it, and not all of them have ill intents. Some claim to be very well meaning, such as the female politicians in the Iceland who banned stripclubs and prostitution as being damaging to women.

Now, I won’t go into the fact that I disagree with that, because I already spoke about it before, but I will say this – if the women are consenting to this, then they should be allowed to do this. If their choice upsets your moral sensibilities, then you should focus on trying to give women more options – not less.

Women can (and routinely do) make decisions for themselves that you would not make for yourself. I know many women around me make decisions that I don’t fully endorse, and that I certainly wouldn’t do personally, yet I don’t seek to take their rights away. I don’t want to legislate them or force them to make decisions that I would accept because they know themselves better than I, and I’m not their caregiver. They are adults. They can decide for themselves.

However, there have been times when I have complimented someone and they took it to be insulting just because of their own associations with a specific word, and their own relationship with language.

I once met a dancer who was tall and sinewy and flexible and very thin. I told her she was beautiful, so graceful, like a gazelle.

She was very offended by this. Her own view on gazelles were not as favourable as mine, obviously, and where I focused on their grace and beauty, all she could think of was that I was insulting her.

I once, while becoming socially conscious of the derogatory manner of calling women ‘girls’ decided to call the women I worked with ladies. I was quickly rebuffed and told they were girls. Being called girls, to them, was a compliment where as being called ladies was an insult.

When becoming aware of our own language and how it affects people, we have to remember that everyone looks at language, especially offensive language, in a very personal light.

Now, most contentious of all, and one that has gotten a lot of press for the past decade, is the use of the word ‘gay’ as an insult. I’d like to take a moment to frame this discussion in my own childhood.

In my childhood, I didn’t call people gay. I called them lame, or retarded. This was during a point in time when there was a lot of publicity surrounding mentally and physically handicapped people, during the rise of the word ‘special’ to describe those with severe handicaps. Differently-abled. We weren’t to call them handicapped people, but people who have a handicap.

My cousin was handicapped. He was born with Sacral Agenesis, a problem with his spine that is similar to Spina Bifida. He was in a wheelchair. I loved him, I never looked down on him, and I thought he was awesome. He worked as a clothing model as magazines and stores were trying to be more inclusive, he got free seats in movies and other shows because of his handicap. He even brought me to meet the Globetrotters and the Ninja Turtles and Mr. Dress-up. In no way did I consider him retarded or lame.

Another friend I had when I was younger was severely mentally handicapped. She couldn’t form words, was in a wheelchair, and had the mental equivalency of a two year old or so. I never thought of her as retarded. The words, to me, weren’t linked to the reality of my close friends and family.

And this is what’s happening with the word gay. It’s not that people are using it as an insult to gay people, or because they have ill concept of homosexuals, or even necessarily feels about them in any specific way, for good or for bad. It’s a word. A quick, easy word.

And when people say that we should use the word ‘gay’ and should use a more appropriate word like ‘lame’, I’m instantly reminded of my own recent childhood where lame was another word for someone in a wheelchair or required crutches. Lame was very recently another slur, and one that people took offense to for a long time.

We can try to enlighten people about why their language is hurtful, and try to be more mindful of the words we choose to use, but it helps everyone to be a little less offended by these things as well. I know it’s hard. I know everyone has hot button words. I know I have a few. We just have to accept this and not let it bother us so much. Not everyone has the same opinion on words as us, and a good many people have turned their back on politically correct language because they feel that it has gone to long and effectively neutered our language.

Not Safe For Work.

George Carlin completely shirked politically correct language and reveled in using un-PC terms. Not because he hated those people, but because he felt that pandering to people’s emotions and making things so palatable and easy to digest was bad for communication and bad for people. Dedicating our life around trying to make sure everyone is happy and feeling okay makes people weak. People don’t learn how to deal with handling minor upsets, people feel that any thing they don’t like should be censored – either by the person talking or, if they refuse, by someone else.

Not only that, though. This constantly changing definition of what makes language offensive creates divides between people.

Take, for instance, the transsexual / transgender movement. There are many who feel he and she are sexist and we should move away from that to ze and zir. Some have then taken offense when someone call them ‘him/her’, because they feel those definitions and those words are wrong and insulting. Because of this, some people have felt alienated from even discussing transgendered issues because they worry that they’ll be seen as offensive if they don’t use the most politically correct term – one that may well vary depending on location and personal preference.

We have to understand that people use language in different ways than us, and the important aspect is the intent of the word and its usage. We can still try to coach people in acceptable language, letting them know why certain words aren’t the best to use and why certain words are considered hurtful and hateful, but we shouldn’t let language control us and hinder us from making friends.

I’ll end with a final thought. For years Dan Savage, a gay male columnist, had readers address all letters to him with ‘Hey F****t’ in an effort to reclaim the word. Words can be reclaimed, definitions change, and language is a fluid thing. We can try to lead it in the direction we want it to go, but we must remain mindful that intent is the most important thing to decipher in language, and not the words themselves.

I wasn’t sure if this was a strange thing or not until I did this blog. I read books based on my interests, or recommendations from others who have similar interests to me. I can only name three publishing houses off the top of my head (Harlequin, Scholastic, and Penguin) and I couldn’t tell you of a single book under those houses.

Of my favourite Authors (Margaret Atwood, George Orwell, Lisa Smedman, Elaine Cunningham, Vladamir Nabokov) I couldn’t name what publisher they used, or if that publisher tends towards similar genres of writing.

I had never truthfully even realized that this was how other people found books until I joined a writing community, Absolute Write, and read other people who stayed within certain publishing houses. Who had a list of agents and publishers that they liked and appreciated based on other work done under their name. It was quite a shock to me.

Of the publishers I named, only one is part of the “Big Six” as it’s often quoted (Hachette Book Group, HarperCollins, Macmillan, Penguin Group, Random House and Simon & Schuster, for those of you wondering).

There’s a poll (obviously unscientific) on Goodreads that currently says that about 50% almost never notice who publishes the book, 13% who never ever notice it. 19% say they have a few publishers they like but choose the book based on other criteria, and 17% who said that it’s not very important but they do notice it.

How do you find new books to read?

Racial, sexual and lifestyle diversity is incredibly important to the entertainment industry specifically, and all industries generally. Fresh ideas that draw in new consumers rarely come about because the company kept the same staff for 20 years and kept making the same games – they just got better at honing their craft at one type of thing, which is what some game developers require. But even when, say, making the newest Madden Sports game, you still require fresh ideas and insights on your games to keep your consumers loyal in the long term.

It’s not a bad thing to look to a woman you respect and admire for her viewpoint on something, because you don’t feel you’re properly evaluating something. Maybe you worry that you feel something is fine, but you’re concerned that it might offend someone. Maybe you really, really like the new Catwoman because she’s sexy and powerful and strong, but you worry that maybe she’s a bad role model for women, so you go to your favourite female writers to see if they had any insight on it.

If only more people were like you, wanting to get diverse opinions on something before diving in! Truly! That’s an absolutely amazing trait to possess, and I think we should reward people who want to find varying opinions that question their own values and ideas.

And yet I understand her conundrum. She’s one woman, in a sea of women. She might think the new Catwoman is rad and a great role model for women! Ah, but then there’s another woman over here that you agree with on a lot of things but thinks unnecessarily sexing her up has detracted from her appeal as a strong female character.

One woman saying that something is okay doesn’t mean that all women will agree. One woman saying something is okay, doesn’t mean all women think it’s okay. I know that logically people know this – but sometimes, we forget.

There’s a new game coming out named Skullgirls that’s a traditional style fighting game, with beautiful women. It came under attack as being sexist, because sometimes when the women move, their breasts succumb to gravity. When they kick in their skirt, you can see between their legs to their panties.

Peter Bartholow, lead developer for Revenge Labs, said he’s gotten a lot of comments from males about the sexist nature of this game. Firstly, holy crap, that makes me feel warm and fuzzy. The idea that men are thinking about this, that they’re troubled about over sexualisation and trivialization of women is just so pleasing to me. That’s an excellent step towards becoming more analytical about the media we consume, and I whole-heartedly support it.

He went on to say that some men then become suddenly comfortable with the game once told that the lead designer is a woman.

So what causes this shift? The idea that women can’t be sexist or objectify women? I assure you, we can, and do, and are. Does it just simply make it okay when a group makes something that might be perceived as offensive when it’s targeted at them? Think of black comedians making jokes at their races expense – does that make it okay?

There’s a wide, wide variety of viewpoints on the subject.

On the promotional material for the game itself? I didn’t think it was sexist. Sure, I got some panty shots. Cammie fights in her panties. It’s highly stylized and looks pretty damn cute so far. Does it mean that it’s not sexist? Well, in my eyes, no. In someone else’s? Yea.

So consider other people’s opinions, especially those of people you respect, but in the end, no one can give you permission to find something acceptable. That has to come from you.

(Image Source)

Because of our complications and confusions of these two terms, particularly in news reporting, we’re cutting down on our compassion and empathy for a group of people with disturbing desires that can be helped. Because of the stigma associated with the word ‘pedophile’, very few seek the help that they should, and without a support network that helps them deal with their unhealthy desires, they may be more likely to actually offend.

Child molestation, much like rape and sexual assault of any kind, has less to do with sexual desire and more to do with power. With feelings of dominance. With opportunity.

Most child molesters know the victim – they’re family, friends. They’re people often around the child with the means and opportunity to assault the child. Very few child molestations are perpetrated by the shadowy man watching them at the park – the person everyone assumes to be a dangerous pedophile.

There should be more support for non-offending pedophiles. Talking about castrating everyone that has these desires – chemically or otherwise – does nothing to encourage these men to come forward for help. While there might be some extreme cases where killing the male sex drive might be considered, it’s not the only option.

Having community support, such as an understanding therapist that can guide them away from their desires and urges and council them in empathy and compassion, will do far more good than ostracizing and threatening them.

People want to protect children. It frightens people to think of another person hurting their child in such a profound way, and it disgusts people that some do have fantasies about children. That’s not an easy pill to swallow for anyone.

However, we shouldn’t make judgements based on moral panic. We must be realistic about non-offending pedophiles and what will truly help them to never cross into the child molester territory. At the same time, we must be more honest about what people are – pedophile and child molester are not exchangeable words and should no longer be treated as such.

The way we currently deal with both groups of individuals does nothing more than raise the chance that they’ll offend or reoffend. Segregating them to the outskirts of society, stealing away their pastimes, taking away their families, forcing them to struggle for a job or housing, embittering them towards society is not the solution.

Society has strong views about the protection of children, and it’s only natural to want to do so. But we must think past this and approach it logically and rationally. Rehabilitation and therapy is proven to reduce recidivism rates, and giving people a safe place to talk about their feelings – in a non-encouraging manner – is important. Think of it like anorexia support groups – you want a support group that’s honest and welcoming and supportive, yet you don’t want a support group that encourages the illness such as pro-ana groups. One helps the individual, the other hurts them – and society.

“Tropes are devices and conventions that a writer can reasonably rely on as being present in the audience members’ minds and expectations. On the whole, tropes are not clichés. Above all, a trope is a convention. It can be a plot trick, a setup, a narrative structure, a character type, a linguistic idiom… you know it when you see it.”

Last year, Feminist Frequency did a video about The Evil Demon Seductress trope.

Now I often feel that Feminist Frequency is too quick to tear down portrayals of women in the media and does little to support positive traits or characteristics of the same portrayals of the same character, and this time was no different. She mentions Buffy as using the trope of the sexy, killer woman not once – but twice! Buffy had 144 episodes that explored a range of villains and issues, and is often thought to have been one of the more feminist-friendly shows on television.

To deride it for portraying two of their evil female creatures as both sexy and deadly is not only offensive, but it is a single minded criticism without thought of context. There was also, in Buffy, many attractive men that seduced women in order to betray or kill them, and it was multi-layered in its portrayal of gender, gender roles, and individuals.

Dracula, Spike and Angel often seduced and killed women, and Sweet seduced everyone in the town in order to dance them to their demise. In fact, Dracula seduced Buffy in the same episode that was criticized for the three vampire women seducing Giles, which was a light adaptation of the book of the same name. If this trope is offensive to women, then surely the male equivalent of the Trope must be considered offensive to men.

They also mention Battlestar Galactica as negatively demonstrating this trope in the first episode of the miniseries, when Six walks in seductively and then kills the human ambassador.

I understand the point of the criticism. I don’t believe that Buffy or Battlestar Galactica couldn’t have been improved upon, or that I couldn’t find faults in either, but how many things can you truly claim to be perfect, entertaining, and completely socially aware? To pick apart and look at seemingly offensive tropes while ignoring the context of the show is short sighted and discouraging for those that seek to have strong and interesting characters.

Are women never allowed to demonstrate that they are both sexy and monstrous? Are we not allowed to show women who use their sexuality as a dangerous weapon? Is the femme fatale bad for women?

I really don’t feel it is, and speaking with other women, they delight in these powerful, sensual, sexual women who can hold a person enthralled in their physical prowess while at the same time working towards their own goals with murderous intents. Women feel they are strong and enjoyable characters, rather that weakening and putting down females.

Sexy, murderous men are increasingly popular with women, especially those that are now mature women. Sexy men who come in and seduce women, holding them enthralled while they work towards murderous intents? Vampires in fiction, particularly in romantic novels are targeted at women and often following the same ‘trope’ of the evil demon seductress (were the word seductress not so gendered, that is).

Perhaps it’s simply that people of all genders enjoy the idea of being so sexually enthralled and enraptured by someone’s charms that we lose our abilities (and guilt!) about not being able to resist. There is a delightful fantasy in lacking all control over yourself and succumbing to passion. Consequences be damned.

Or perhaps, overall, we just love the idea of the sexual, sexy bad person.

I’ll end with my own thoughts on Anita Sarkeesian’s final words in the above video:

“Hollywood writers, I don’t have a problem with you occasionally making some of your villains female, but you’ve gotta stop writing women who’s primary weapon is her sexuality.”

To that, I say, Hollywood writers, thank you for making female villains. Thank you for showing some diversity in your films by not always having male villains. Some feminists may accept the ‘occasional’ female villain if she meets a set of arbitrary criteria, but I say give our Hollywood villains equality!

(Spike and Buffy Image Source) (Six Image Source)

The movie follows a group of infected individuals as they’re dumped in a facility without anyone to guide them. They’re treated cruelly, quickly things become a mess as people are unable to find their way around as they adapt to their sudden blindness. They are under armed guard, and there is one scene where a guard shoots a lost blind man who is simply seeking guidance of where to go.

They are given rationed food – too little to live on – and things quickly start to get out of hand. One of the individuals takes control of the rations and demands a trade for the food, first in precious jewellery and then in women.

It’s a savage and unrelenting film that didn’t glorify the violence – it was handled quite tastefully for the most part – and yet it explored the feelings that would go along with this enormous sense of loss and chaos. With the world struck blind, with the group stuck in quarantine, with there being no guidance or laws, society breaks down.

The Wikipedia page mentioned that the movie received criticism.

Dr. Marc Maurer, President of the National Federation of the Blind, said: “The National Federation of the Blind condemns and deplores this film, which will do substantial harm to the blind of America and the world.” A press release from the American Council of the Blind said “…it is quite obvious why blind people would be outraged over this movie. Blind people do not behave like uncivilized, animalized creatures.” The National Federation of the Blind announced plans to picket theaters in at least 21 states, in the largest protest in the organization’s 68-year history.

This movie (and the book it was based upon) wasn’t about blindness. It was about a fast spreading, global pandemic that suddenly struck most people with a disability to which society responded by pushing them aside, without support or care.

Blind people do not behave like uncivilized, animalized creatures – but people do.

People are capable of horrible, terrible things. Things that they never thought themselves of being capable of. Things they might wish they weren’t capable of.

Blind people should be outraged by the movie – as should sighted people – because it speaks to one of our greatest fears.

This could be us.

[Image Source]