Dating animal consumers

I gave it a broad term because I'm vegan, and preferably, I would like whoever I date to be vegan too. So 'meat eaters' doesn't cut it.

This has been a real conflict for me - would I ever seriously date someone who wasn't vegan? (when I say 'date', I actually mean seriously date, someone you plan on spending a large part of your life with)

Image not mine

Veganism is such a big part of my life that, before, I didn't see much of a point in dating someone who viewed certain animal products as commodities and tasty treats. Yeah, it's easy to focus on other things that you like or have in common...but being vegan affects a lot of my personality, what I choose to do, how I react to certain things etc...it isn't like being really into a band.

Speaking of, I used to have the idea that I didn't really want to date anyone unless they shared a similar taste in music...but music doesn't affect who someone is (a certain type of person doesn't listen to rock music for example), yet a lot of vegans have proven that they give a shit about animals and are conscious about what they put in/on their body....I've never met a vegan who isn't compassionate, kind, and genuinely animal-loving. Veganism isn't just a diet, it's a lifestyle.

This might sound pretentious to some people, but it makes sense. Like, for example, if you're a feminist, could you date someone who's misogynistic and sees no point in feminism, even if they treated you well? Just like veganism, feminism affects how someone sees the world, what they do, what they're passionate about etc.

So what's my overall view? I could date someone who still used animal products IF they were open to the idea of stopping/wanted to stop eventually. If it's taking a while, then I understand that - I once met a vegan who told me it took her five years to give up animal products altogether, and that didn't mean that she didn't care, it meant that it was a hard process.

To become vegan, or even vegetarian, you have to dismiss everything that you've probably been told your entire life - you need to look past the constant adverts, animal-consumer mentality, everyone around you saying that using animals is completely okay...and that's fucking difficult, even when you do become veg*an. I still struggle with the animal-consumer society, but in a different way - instead of struggling to break free from all I've known, I struggle to understand why people are so apathetic or downright aggressive when it comes to using animals.

And I understand the aggression - telling someone that [you believe] what they've been doing and love their entire life is grotesque and actually causes a lot of pain and suffering for the animals, the planet, and the human race can be hard-hitting, people are bound to get defensive...so I get that, but if people take a second to properly think about what they're doing instead of immediately getting in vegans' faces, they'll realise we're not just saying this to piss them off.

In conclusion - yes, I would date someone who wasn't vegan...but not if they have no intention to ever change that or think that veganism is a waste of time. If they find the idea of vegetarianism appealing even, that's still fine, because a lot of veggies eventually do become vegan...it's like a stepping stone (it must be incredibly hard to go vegan right away).

....But I still won't approve of them using animals; what I will approve of is their will to change.

No Shave November

Or 'Movember' (which I shall call it from now on because it's quicker to type).

A movement started to raise awareness for prostate and testicular cancer.

I'm not here to talk about cancer or the reason why Movember was invented, I'm here to talk about what some people have been saying about women regarding Movember.

A regular theme I've seen is that women taking part in Movember are either not entitled because it's something regarding men only (not shaving their facial hair), or that if they DO, they have to be prepared to get no sex [because women not shaving is ew gross].

I want to address the bit about entitlement first. Not only does the Noshember website encourage men AND women alike to put down the razor for a month, but if women want to show their support for cancer, why shouldn't they be able to (by also not shaving) as well....?

Someone on tumblr sums up what I'm arguing against nicely:

'Why would they do that? It’s all about them, all the time. They have pink everywhere for breast cancer awareness, which is primarily a female problem. But this one month of awareness for a male problem, which most probably don’t even know about, is driving them insane. Pathetic.'

HAVING A GO AT WOMEN FOR ALSO WANTING TO SHOW SUPPORT IS MESSED UP.

That's almost like arguing with straight people for wearing a t-shirt that promotes LGBTQA* rights.

I could go down the 'it's also possible for trans*women to get prostate or testicular cancer' route because it's a valid point, but I would end up compiling a completely separate rant for that one because the erasure of trans*people from the media is incredibly vast and a lot of people don't (or refuse to) understand or are transphobic.

Also...women have facial hair.

There are places encouraging women not to shave their legs, but women do also grow facial hair, it's not a big secret, it's biology, and I think it's sad that women should have to feel bad or ashamed about not shaving ANY PART of themselves because the media promotes us as completely hairless, even in razor adverts. Not once have I seen a woman shaving actual hair from their body in a razor advert, yet a quick google for Gillette showed a man shaving hair from his body because, guess what, no-one shaves hairless parts of their body. But, again, that's another rant for another time.

The next point is the oh so lovely argument that if a woman doesn't shave, they're unattractive/will get 'no dick'. This one barely even needs a rant because it's pathetic.

I've heard people say many times that a woman not shaving is unnatural and that is the most backward piece of shit because 'natural' means 'naturally occurring', and that is what hair on anyone (yes even women) is!

If women were not 'supposed' to have body hair...then they wouldn't be born with the ability to grow body hair!

Plus, why do these people assume that a woman will care whether or not they get sex? That's not a terrifying threat. If someone won't have sex with a woman just because of body hair then tell them to take a hike because a lot of decent people will not give a fuck.

What about people who don't like facial hair on men? I've seen nothing about that potential 'problem'.

Most importantly, this was all started to raise cancer awareness, fuck whether taking part in Movember will get someone laid or not, it is nothing to do with that.

--

At the end of the day, women are not trying to 'take over' the cause, they just want to participate and show support, maybe even donate also.

What is the harm in showing support for something that might not affect the person directly?