#I'm almost 20

[sunnycanwrite]

Imagine being able to drive a car, haha lame. I steered my wheelchair into a display at the grocery store and knocked it over. But they can't take that license away. Right? Right....???

[nagasthia]

I got mistaken for a 12 yo and the ladies gave me tickets to play in the kids fishing pool game😀😀😀

THAT WAS THE HIGHLIGHT OF MY MONTH HONESTLY BSBDHSHABAJAKAN

[glass-expanse]

Banished to my bedroom for saying unspeakable things

[andsewingishalfthebattle]

Novice sewing pattern: Cut out shapes. Line up the little triangles on the edges. Stitch edges together. We've also included step-by-step assembly instructions with illustrations.

Novice knitting pattern: yOU MUSt uNDerstANd thE SECret cOdE CO67 (73, 87, 93) BO44 (63, 76, 90) 28 (32, 34) slip first pw repeat 7x K to end *kl (pl) 42 * until 13" (13, 13, 15) join new at 30 pl for 17 rows ssk 27 k2tog mattress lengthwise BO and sacrifice a goat to the knitting gods. WHAT DO YOU MEAN YOU WANT "INSTRUCTIONS," I JUST GAVE THEM TO YOU

[ilovedthestars]

A thought I’ve been having: While it's important to recognize the long history of many current queer identities (and the even longer history of people who lived outside of the straight, cis, allo “norm”) I think it's also important to remember that a label or identity doesn't have to be old to be, for lack of a better word, real.

This post that i reblogged a little while ago about asexuality and its history in the LGBTQ+ rights movement and before is really good and really important. As i've thought about it more, though, it makes me wonder why we need to prove that our labels have "always existed." In the case of asexuality, that post is pushing back against exclusionists who say that asexuality was “made up on the internet” and is therefore invalid. The post proves that untrue, which is important, because it takes away a tool for exclusionists.

But aromanticism, a label & community with a lot of overlap & solidarity with asexuality, was not a label that existed during Stonewall and the subsequent movement. It was coined a couple decades ago, on internet forums. While the phrasing is dismissive, it would be technically accurate to say that it was “made up on the internet.” To be very clear, I’m not agreeing with the exclusionists here—I’m aromantic myself. What I’m asking is, why does being a relatively recently coined label make it any less real or valid for people to identify with?

I think this emphasis on historical precedent is what leads to some of the attempts to label historical figures with modern terminology. If we can say someone who lived 100 or 1000 years ago was gay, or nonbinary, or asexual, or whatever, then that grants the identity legitimacy. but that's not the terminology they would have used then, and we have no way of knowing how, or if, any historical person's experiences would fit into modern terminology.

There's an element of "the map is not the territory" here, you know? Like this really good post says, labels are social technologies. There's a tendency in the modern Western queer community to act like in the last few decades the "truth" about how genders and orientations work has become more widespread and accepted. But that leaves out all the cultures, both historical and modern, that use a model of gender and sexuality that doesn't map neatly to LGBTQ+ identities but is nonetheless far more nuanced than "there are two genders, man and woman, and everyone is allo and straight." Those systems aren’t any more or less “true” than the system of gay/bi/pan/etc and straight, cis and trans, aro/ace and allo.

I guess what I’m saying is, and please bear with me here, “gay” people have not always existed. “Nonbinary” people have not always existed. “Asexual” people have not always existed. But people who fell in love with and had sex with others of the same gender have always existed. People who would not have identified themselves as either men or women have always existed. People who didn’t prioritize sex (and/or romance) as important parts of their lives have always existed. In the grand scheme of human existence, all our labels are new, and that’s okay. In another hundred or thousand years we’ll have completely different ways of thinking about gender and sexuality, and that’ll be okay too. Our labels can still be meaningful to us and our experiences right now, and that makes them real and important no matter how new they are.

We have a history, and we should not let it be erased. But we don’t need a history for our experiences and ways of describing ourselves to be real, right now.

[doctor-disc0]

Sometimes you have to hyperfixate on a 20 year old video game and that's just life

[marshmallowgoop]

no thoughts just Heiji Hattori (HD)

[front-facing-pokemon]

[wardingshout]

Viridian trainers for day 5 of spesilverweek! they are my most beloved but Lance is a cursed character who is impossible to draw or portray in any way to me

[notbecauseofvictories]

A number of years ago, I was sitting at the kitchen table with my parents. (I think it was lunch? lunch-ish? but I can't really remember.) Anyway, my father kept insisting that if you have hobbies, you should hustle and turn it into a blog, a podcast---something that would use that expertise, and share it with others. But my mother pushed back; she insisted that doing something is an end in itself. You can just read a book. You can think about what you read, turning it over in your head. Maybe talk about it with your local book club! But you don't need to start a LIT CHICKS podcast and read books every month and offer Blue Apron discount codes during commercial breaks, etc. etc.

You can just read the book.

I find myself thinking about that exchange a lot. I can just take a butterfly pinning class, or a foraging class, or a historical walking tour, and that's enough. The world is for doing things in, learning and meeting and seeing---you do not have to turn that into shareable content or a life's passion to give it worth.

[yasmeensh]

Got the Master sword! I believe there is still one more upgrade to go...

Bonus Groose after Link sealed the imprisoned.

[fromperdition4]

Okay, why didn't anyone tell me baby Mile auditioned for The Star?

(Not gonna link the 20 second clip that's on YouTube because it's... a lot, but it's not hard to find 😂)

And wait - were they just bullying Mile here:

brutal

[goldenpinof]

because you're worth it for @freckliedan

[what-am-i-doing-in-this-fandom]

"Was... a waste of your time...?"

Unbelievable how a crumb of Jay has me acting

[child-of-the-danube]

I don't know what the fact that Agatha All Along gave me a cast of fantastic, hot, entertaining, beautiful women around the age of 40/50 playing canonically queer characters (literally textbook perfect example of how to bait me to watch something AND those women are fucking Kathryn Hahn and Aubrey Plaza) and me going "Yeah, beautiful, amazing, showstopping, perfect, however, I will fall most deeply in love with the kooky disaster divination witch that could age wise be my grandma" says about my gay ass, but here we are 🤷

[projectcatzo]

I told my cousins I collect Webkinz, and they were like "Oooh, an old-school collector." Old-school.