#also the aro objectification

[love-laugh-daydreamarevolt]

Me: Oh I'm on the ace spectru-

Them: Omg ur soooo cute and innocent~

Me: How about I stab you multiple times? will I still look adorable covered in ur blood?

[heycallmered]

my pics are all tagged #pics of Red, my voice content is tagged #voice of Red

Hey, I'm Red; 30, plural, they/she, pan, aro, switch, vers; also MILF by popular vote

this is my kinky, horny side blog; minors dni

follows from @knives-in-the-dishwater

full kink list coming later; just wanted to get this up. (update: partial list is complete)

links here

I also do custom pics, starting at $5 each; I add an additional charge for anything I need to procure or set up for a pic (or clean up after), but no charge for niche kinks. I can also "giftwrap" your pic(s) in one or two short, in-character rp messages for $1 extra.

System members, kinks, and boundaries listed below the fold

System Members

(not an exhaustive list; just the ones who might post here. section under construction)

If you want to send an ask or DM to a particular alter, just let us know and we'll make sure they're the one who responds.

Want to know which alter you're talking to? just ask.

Cherry

She / It, sub bottom

free use exhibitionist slut, and kind of a bimbo. Will suck almost anything you put in her mouth, and loves attention.

Likes:

free use (especially oral)

exhibitionism

praise

older people (especially men in their 50s)

cum play

wearing slutty clothes

public sex

objectification

bimbofication

Will use 🌺 to signify her posts

Madder ("Maddie" or "Mads")

She / Her, Dom top

resident mean, gross girl. Will rub her sweaty body on your face and then bully you for getting turned on by the smell.

Likes:

cnc

musk

bullying

free use

objectification

blackmail

fauxcest

piss

impact play

breath play

dumbification

force fem

bimbofication

degradation

Will use 👅 to signify her posts

Scarlett

She / Her, Dom top

soft mommydom; calls everyone "sweetie", especially during cnc scenes. stone Dom (she doesn't like to orgasm or get touched during a scene; she just gets off on domming you)

Likes:

cnc

overstimulation

bondage

pain play

subs asking for permission to cum

younger subs

shy subs

dumbification

Will use 💋 to signify her posts

Crimson

It / Its, Dom top

Sadistic primal-adjacent Dom; very fond of blood and fear.

Will use 🔪 to signify its posts

Carmine

They / He

Self-proclaimed "recreational sexologist" who enjoys observing the scope of human sexuality; particularly interested in monster fucking.

Will use 🔬 to signify their posts

Boundaries

I will not "go easy on you" if you tell me you didn't read these boundaries; they are here to keep me safe, and I will make no exceptions.

If you send me pics of your genitals without my consent, I will block you. Yes, even if we were flirting / sexting at the time; you still need consent.

If you treat me like an object without also treating me like a person, I will block you.

if you make me uncomfortable, I will end our conversation. you can try again another time. If it becomes a pattern, I will block you.

If you ask me to date you, marry you, etc., I will end our conversation. you can try again another time. if it becomes a pattern, I will block you.

If I say I won't do something (send a certain pic, rp a certain act, etc.) and you ask again, I will end our conversation. you can try again another time. if it becomes a pattern, I will block you.

I don't like to be called "Miss". The first time you call me that, you'll get a reminder not to. The second time, I will end our conversation. you can try again another time. if it becomes a pattern, I will block you.

🪬

[telephonetrance]

new intro post yayyy

hiii you can call me three/trick/radio, welcome to my kink blog! i’m your local robotgirlboy who’s a big fan of hypnokink :]

warning for dark kinks (noncon, psychological stuff, sometimes gore, and more), i’ll try to tag what seems especially egregious but let me know if you want anything specific tagged!

i’m 18, a switch, aro+bi, and i go by any pronouns but i like it/its!

PLS talk to me about hypnosis and games (esp ttrpgs) and kink !!!! i don’t always do kink play but i am always a nerd abt kink. asks and dms are very welcome :D

MAIN KINKS: cnc, hypnosis/mind control/brainwashing, robots/tech/objectum, worship/divinity, objectification, orgasm denial, bondage, musk, snuff, fearplay

rambly info under the cut:

more hyperspecific weird stuff im into: theatre, metanarrative/messing w reality, math, knights/armor/weapons, henchmen, games, switchy dynamics, forced romance, messing w communication/language, being made to be into kinks (i GUESS that’s just called corruption but for some reason that doesn’t feel right)

also i’ve been playing w droneplay so i might occasionally refer to myself in 3rd person as “it” or “03” but who knows if that’ll actually come up

TAG LIST:

#3's posts: my original posts

#3's art: my drawings

#asks: me answering asks

#pics: irl pictures/videos of people

#audio: audios

#scripts stories: (typically hypnotic) longer pieces of text

#art: other people’s art

#tech: robots/objectum of all flavors!

#dynamics: mostly switchy (but not always) stuff i find fun/inspiring

#math kink real: ok this started as a joke. math hot

[sol-draws-sometimes]

Unrelated to this episode but as a twin, everytime I remember Lark had an affair with Sparrow’s wife, I’m just… in disbelief. Like, I hate when people ogle at my twin and I, and are like “WHAT’S IT LIKE BEING A TWIN!” “I WISH I WAS A TWIN!” “WOW! HAVING A TWIN IS HAVING A BUILT IN BESTFRIEND!” However, weird objectification aside, they’re not wrong. I DO have a close bond with twin that I don’t with anyone else. For most of my life (and all my childhood), we were on the same wavelength emotionally speaking. Obviously we had put diffrences, but the way we viewed the world and reacted to things emotionally was almost the same. In middle school, we both were struggling mentally, but we understood each other, she felt like the only irl person who truly understood what I was going through, because she was going through it too. To me, our relationship is taken for granted. No matter what happens, how much we fight or bicker, I have never once in my life doubted whether she loved me or not. Her love has always been, and still is, the strongest constant in my life. And even though the way we view the world and act emotionally is no longer exactly the same, she is still the one person I feel understands me the most.

And that’s why, I can’t wrap my head around the fact that Lark did that. How could he have done that. I could NEVER, see myself betray my sister like that. And yes I’m young, and ace (and on the aro spec), so you could argue it’s not the same but like, even if I were allo, I just, can not see myself having an affair WITH MY TWIN’S S.O.! (also I just hate the idea that cheating is just a thing that happens sometimes like, I’m sure there are relationships that recover from that, but come one, seriously it’s so easy to not cheat) The worst part is that I still think Lark loves Sparrow. Scratch that, I know he still loves Sparrow. I’m not good at wording it, but the best example I can think of, is Lark pretending to be Sparrow so that he could fix Sparrow’s relationship with Normal, so that Sparrow doesn’t have a bad relationship with their son. I’m thinking of that person who made a post about how Lark shows love and I wish I could remember so that can point to that, but it mentioned Lark sewing bulletproof into Normal’s suit. Anyway, Lark LOVES Sparrow, and they are each other’s world. The problem is that they’re codependent with each other, which can make them enable their worst attributes, or let them brush things off that shouldn’t be brushed off.

I can’t imagine doing what Lark did to Sparrow, to my sister. Idk how my sister could EVER forgive such a betrayal. I know some romantic couples can genuinely work together to overcome an affair, so I guess that can be applied to platonic and familial situations as well. But still, Sparrow TRUSTED Lark more than anyone else in his life, for Lark to break that that trust, it just… idk. Also, I definitely understand why Sparrow forgave Lark, they can’t lose their only family left. They are each other’s world. Especially after everything they’ve gone through. Tho I will say, I don’t think Sparrow’s just completely over it either. His wife and brother had a fucking affair together. That has to hurt. Plus, there are little lines when referring to Normal that Sparrow’s said that leads me to believe that Sparrow has some unprocessed feelings about the affair pushed deep, deep down to keep peace.

I wonder how much thought Anthony put into to that plot point. Most of the times it’s played as joke but if you think about it for 2 seconds it’s so fucked. But Anthony cares too much about the kiddads for me to believe it was just a joke, like the Hermie’s dads situation. I wonder what made him think this is a thing Lark would do.

This isn’t supposed to be an “I HATE LARK” post. I think he’s a very interesting character, the way he’s reacting and processing to everything that happened in S1 and S2 is fascinating. And just to reiterate, I know he still loves Sparrow. But still, I keep thinking about how do you betray the person who’s your whole world, who you arguably love the most. Or guess, my real question is WHY. What has going on in his head that led him to doing that. Even from a more selfish standpoint, I don’t think Sparrow currently trusts, or will ever trust Lark the way he did pre-affair. And I don’t think Lark is stupid enough to believe having an affair with Sparrow’s wife wouldn’t irrevocably change their relationship.

I wish I could be more eloquent, but I always forget and every time I remember what he did I just don’t know how to feel about it. Idk, I just keep thinking about them. I can’t help it, I’m a latino twin, they were handcrafted for me.

If you have any thoughts on this, PLEASE DO SHARE THEM WITH THEM WITH ME. (also idk if this conversation’s already been had but I haven’t engaged)

Ps: something, something Lark hates himself so much he tries to ruin his relationship with Sparrow because he feels like he doesn’t deserve love, not even from Sparrow. Yah started thinking about it outside my perspective. I can see that being his reasoning, but still…I just, I can’t image actual doing that. But yah, I think I’m satisfied with that reasoning.

[variousqueerthings]

okay I didn't go into Victory of the Daleks whilst watching cos I think it's trash, but let's do the Measurement on it!

sexism rank objectification (female character is ogled/harassed/turned into a sex joke by the doctor and/or a lead we’re supposed to root for and/or the camera): 9/10

sexism rank plot-point (lead female character is only there to serve plot, not to have her emotional interiority explored): 3/10

interesting complex or pointlessly complex (does the complexity serve the narrative or does it just serve to be confusing as a stand-in for smart, this includes visually): 6/10

furthers character and/or lore and/or plot development (broader question that ties into the previous ones, at least two of these, ideally three should be fulfilled): 5/10

companion matters (the companion doesn’t always have to be there, but if the companion is there, can they function without the doctor– and overall per season how often is the companion the focus or POV of the story): 5/10

the doctor is more than just “godlike” (examines the doctor’s flaws and limitations, doesn’t solve a plot by having it revolve entirely around the doctor’s existence): 6/10

doesn’t look down on previous doctor who (by erasing or mocking its importance, by redoing and “bettering” previous beloved plotpoints or characters, etc.): 7/10

isn’t trying to insert hamfisted sexiness (m*ffat famously talked a lot about how dw should be sexier multiple times, he sucks at writing it): 8/10

internal world has consistency (characters have backgrounds, feel rooted in a place with other people, generally feel like they have Lives): 3/10

Politics (how conservative is the story): 1/10

FULL RATING: 53/100 (if I can count….)

Christopher Eccleston I hope you never watched the last two episodes, in which the Doctor was personal friends with various members of the royal family and supports its structures, and the Doctor is personal friends with Winston Churchill....

also I've gotta be honest, Matt Smith's acting isn't giving it in this in terms of the Dalek Trauma, but then none of the episode is

I liked the Doctor going "Amy- Amelia!" when worried for her safety

OBJECTIFICATION: At least there's none of that really. Second miniskirt, but youknow. that's Amy's wardrobe most of the time.

PLOT-POINT: nothing is really explored about Amy in this episode, but I guess not every episode needs to be doing that. I think her relationship with the Doctor continues to be written a bit to the left of what makes sense for them, considering the past, but I'm willing to consider that she just wants the adventure and not to think too much about things

COMPLEXITY: I mean, it's not complicated at all. if anything it's a bit simple. bringing the Daleks back like this, in a way that previously was reserved for Very Special Episodes. marks the beginning of the end of the Daleks as serious villains....

CHARACTERS/LORE/PLOT: because the Daleks make very little sense in this, it's kind of dumb lore, but way more interesting is the tidbit that Amy doesn't remember the events of previous seasons

now I've previously disliked this plotpoint, because I feel like it never properly gets resolved despite the cracks in time later on being... uncracked. however it is cool when it's first mentioned!

COMPANIONS MATTER: Amy does mostly one thing, which is remind the guy who's actually a robot what it is to be human, so he doesn't blow up, and she does it by reminding him... that he was in love once.....

“hey Paisley… ever fancied someone you know you shouldn’t… hurts doesn’t it… but kind of a good hurt…” <- look I’m biased but I’d just explode if I were a secret Dalek bomb RIP to all of us aros, but we're not really human

this wouldn't needle so much, if I didn't know that this is so much of M*ffat's thesis. romantic love is better than any other forms of connection

“GODLIKE” DOCTOR: the Doctor is kind of the point of this episode in that they needed his voice to make the plot work, and then he's badass, and then it ends. it's not "godlike," but it's just. not a good episode. the end.

PREVIOUS DOCTOR WHO: So this also ties into the lore -- I kind of like right now how it definitely does acknowledge the previous narratives and it's weird that Amy doesn't know that it happened... highly suspect

“SEXINESS”: we're fine on the sexiness overall. minimum trying to be sexy outside of the general weirdness of the miniskirts as a Choice

INTERNAL WORLD: it's not good folks. it's trying to be so big and impressive and so we've got random planes in space and Churchill is Personal Friends With The Doctor and it's got this whole wink wink we know we're going to beat the Germans, because we know the Future

vs, say, M*ffat's last foray into WWII (which, granted he didn't write this episode, but this is his show now) in which you really got a sense of the fear and the unknown and the Deeply Human, because we're not just hanging out with the Most important people

it's just not recognisable as a Place and Time, beyond the need for some kind of coolness factor

and speaking of The Most Important People--

POLITICS: uuuuuuurghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh okay

I have seen someone say that this episode is actually a critique of Churchill, and honestly I was this close to skipping it, and then that dragged me in to actually give it a go and

no it is not. I mean, yes, Churchill is characterised as someone who will try to win however he can, but he's actually trying his best in a difficult situation and as the Doctor says: “the world doesn’t need me. The world’s got Winston Spencer Churchill.”

UUUUUUURGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH OKAY

the doctor personal friends with winston churchill

the fucking. Hey-Ho Britain Propaganda! We'll Beat The Bally Germans Ey Lads!

FULL RATING: 53/100 (if I can count….)

It loses on the politics of course, and on the internal world-building (again related to the politics), and Amy isn't really much of anything in this episode beyond... there

it does well on... not doing the sexy sexism I guess. and it's not terrible towards other Doctor Who stories, although maybe it deserves less on that because fuuuck the shit it does with the Daleks is an insult in and of itself

it's just not a good episode

[loubatas-art]

Not much news lately on the Gamalaou project, despite my resolution to work on it more regularly and share the progress

Part of it is because of recurring health issues and medical appointements (my shoulder is doing a lot better though, so I have good hopes it'll be resolved in a few weeks), having to reorganize my workspace for it to be healthier in the long term, etc.

But it's also because I am currently more busy on the writing part of the story!

I have a sketchbook in which I write most of my ideas and draw my concepts, but when it comes to organizing and planning I've decided to give Campfire a try. Gamalaou is a story short enough that I should be able to only use Campfire's free options. If I like it enough I'll probably upgrade to the paid version so I can use it to plan my other, bigger projects (if not, well, I'll just have to find something else)

Both the characters and locations fit perfectly in the free version limits, isn't that perfect ? Anyway I've set my objectif to have Gamalou fully written and scripted by the end of April, so I can spend the rest of the year on character & location design and maybe even start the thumbnailing process

Also I have decided to draw the Aro Squad (aka my arospec OCs) for Aro Week. I know we're almost at the end of it so I probably won't be done in time, so let's just say Aro Week will get prolongations this year okay?

[23andbean]

I'll admit, I didn't even realize most of these until you pointed them out. And for me, that's a good thing. I'm a cis female whose aro/ace, and am generally uncomfortable with sex. I watch movies and TV, and really any media, to marvel at the story these people are telling and to emotionally experience what the characters are going through. It's very easy for me to overlook plot holes, poor storytelling, or even character breaks. And that's why over sexualization bothers me so much, other than the obvious fact that it's harmful to the people who identify with whose on screen, it breaks me out of my suspended disbelief and makes me terrified of people who enjoy it.

I love action movies. It's my favorite genre of movie, but I hate how prevalent a) the over sexualizing of female characters and b) how often characters are groped or touched in ways they definitely don't want to be. About a month ago, I went to the theaters to watch the newest Mission Impossible, Dead Reckoning part 1, with my family. I was having a blast, the story was tense, stakes were high, and the stunts were perfection. And then, towards the end, a female character gets searched/patted down for weapons and groped. It was super uncomfortable, especially since the camera focused on the man squeezing her chest, in a touch that did not need to linger near as long as it did. (Actually the whole trope of getting groped while being searched is so ridiculously prevalent. John Wick 2 comes to mind where John Wick is being searched and the searcher groped his groin for no reason except that they can.)

The way this scene is shot with camera focus and the way that the man looked so pleased with himself while the woman looked so resigned genuinely makes me feel concerned. Like, what was the purpose of this moment? What reason did the filmmakers have to put this moment into this movie? We already know that both parties are evil. The woman is working for the big bad of the movie and is meeting with the man's boss, who seems to also be bad. We already know they're all terrible people, so the moment is not there to establish character and it certainly doesn't give us any more plot. So why was this moment added? The only reason I can genuinely think of is that the filmmakers thought it was sexy, and by extension, thought that their audience would find it sexy. This genuinely horrifies me and it makes me feel scared to think people see this kind of behavior as normal or gratifying. It scares me to think people would be okay with doing sexual acts with another person who wasn't enjoying themselves.

I'll admit this post got a little bit away from me. I realize that the original post was about Good Omens, which is my current hyperfixation, but this has been something I've been struggling to find an outlet for and this was just the first thing that seemed like a halfway decent jumping-off point. I do have more thoughts, mostly centered around the female objectification in the alternate universe Star Trek movies, which I'll probably post at some point. Thank you for coming to my TedTalk.

Good Omens is queering TV/storytelling - part 1: GAZE

I would argue that part of why Good Omens is so refreshingly queer is because it does not cater to the male gaze (which centers around the preferences - aesthetic, romantic, sexual, visual, logical, emotional, political ... - of mainly white men in positions of power):

no oversexualization of groups or types of people: Women or characters that could be read as female presenting are not overly sexualized. In fact, some of them are shown to be grimy, slimy and not sexual at all. All of them are real characters and not just cardboard-cutout on-screen versions of male misogynistic fantasies. They portray real people with real people problems. They are human, or exempt from our categories when portraying angels or demons. There are no overly sexualized bodies in general (as has so far also often been the case with young gay men, PoC, etc.), no fetishization of power imbalances, and not exclusively youthful depiction of love and desire.

sex or sexual behavior is not shown directly (yet): All imagery and symbolism of sex and sexuality is used not to entice the audience but is very intimately played out between characters, which makes it almost uncomfortable to watch (e.g., Aziraphale being tempted to eat meat, Crowley watching Aziraphale eat, the whole gun imagery).

flaunting heteronormativity: Throughout GO but especially GO2, there is very little depiction of heterosexual/romantic couples; most couples are very diverse and no one is making a fuss about it. There is no fetishization of bodies or identities. Just people (and angels and demons) being their beautiful selves (or trying to).

age: Even though Neil Gaiman explained that Crowley and Aziraphale are middle-aged because the actors are, I think it is also queering the idea of romance, love and desire existing mainly within youthful contexts. Male gaze has taught us that young people falling and being in love is what we have to want to see, and any depiction of love that involves people being not exactly young anymore is either part of a fetishized power imbalance (often with an older dude using his power to prey on younger folx) or presents us with marital problems, loss of desire, etc. – all with undertones of decay and patronizing sympathy. Here, however, we get a beautifully crafted, slow-burn, and somehow super realistic love story that centers around beings older than time and presenting as humans in their 50s figuring out how to deal with love. It makes them both innocent and experienced, in a way that is refreshing and heartbreaking and unusual and real.

does not (exclusively) center around romantic/sexual love: I don’t know if this is a gaze point exactly but I feel like male gaze and resulting expectations of what a love story should look like are heavily responsible for our preoccupation with romantic/sexual love in fiction – the “boy gets girl” type of story. And even though, technically, GO seems to focus on a romantic love story in the end, it is also possible to read this relationship but also the whole show as centering around a kind of love that goes beyond the narrow confines of our conditioned boxed-in thinking. It seems to depict a love of humanity and the world and the universe and just the ineffability of existence as a whole.

disability as beautiful and innate to existence: Disability is represented amongst angels by the extremely cool Saraqael and by diversely disabled unnamed angels in the Job minisode. Representation of disability is obviously super important in its own right, but is also queers what we perceive as aesthetically and ontologically "normal". Male gaze teaches us that youth and (physical and mental) health are the desirable standard and everything else is to be seen as a deviance, a mistake. By including disability among the angels, beings that have existed before time and space, the show clearly states that disability is a beautiful and innate part of existence.

gender is optional/obsolete: Characters like Crowley, Muriel and others really undermine the (visual and aesthetic) boundaries of gender and the black-and-white thinking about gender that informs male gaze. Characters cannot be identfied simply as (binary) men or women anymore just by looking at them or by interpreting their personalities or behaviors. Most characters in GO, and especially the more genderqueer ones, display a balance of feminine and masculine traits as well as indiosyncracies that dissolve the gender binary.

Feel free to add your own thoughts on this in the comments or tags!

[gaggedjaws]

MDNI, 18+ only

DNI also goes for ageless blogs, MAPs, zoophiles(Pokémon don’t count), TERF, and I may add more to this list if I see a need to

Welcome to my blog, fellow sluts I am a 18yr old trans man, he/it/they, subby Aro/ace but kink in fantasy I love, fantasy includes horny asks which are highly encouraged. I may be ace, but I’m a desperate rape slut

My main blog is private as I'd like to keep this and my life as separate as I can have them be

And any post made by me with be tagged #gaggedjaws and are also liked by me

Wow starting this at the beginning of NNN was certainly timing

Kinks & Limits below

BD/SM ✨✨✨

CNC ✨✨✨

CBT ✨✨✨

Chastity ✨✨✨

Corruption ✨✨✨

Objectification ✨✨✨

Pet play ✨✨✨

Asphyxiation ✨✨✨

Monster fucking ✨✨✨

Oviposition / egg preg✨✨✨

Knots ✨✨✨

Degradation ✨✨✨

Praise ✨✨✨

Slut shaming ✨✨✨

Free use ✨✨✨

Overstim ✨✨

Edging ✨✨✨

Branding ✨✨

Electrostim ✨✨

Medfet (NO SYRINGES) ✨✨

Experimentation ✨✨

Forced Exhibitionism ✨✨

Cockwarming ✨✨

Limits

Feel free to interact if you do like these things, just keep me out of it

IRL (including images, except toys)

Gore

Needles

Vore (yes, yes I know my blog name, it is unrelated)

Toilet play (scat, vomit, water-sports, etc)

Weight Gain

[teddyqd]

tags from @lifeless-discodancer

no way bc i was going to add aro kim to this post but walked away forgot and then posted it ...

aro kim doesn't realise he's aro because Everyone Feels Like This Right I'm Normal Right (he is not normal). aro kim seeing people around him Falling In Love and passing it off as them Losing Focus (see: my eyes/alice headcanon -- he respects them both So Much but why are they dating there's a case to solve). aro kim taking longer to realise because he's putting all the amatonormative "find a girlfriend" stuff down as Just heteronormativity..... aro kim trying to do Romance a few times and it leaving a bad taste in his mouth for some reason, even if he does enjoy parts... aro kim finding a space to slot in next to harry that doesn't force him to change who he is

ace harry living up to the machismo and sex drive forced upon him mr muscle man mr gym teacher mr superstar cop... ace harry mistaking (unhealthy levels of) adoration for attraction and desire... ace harry trying to live up to what he thinks he should be for dora (honestly that also factors in his gender & bi-ness but that's another post).. ace harry trying to join in when the c-wing boys are chatting shit on a night out but failing to quite match up with the objectification that they come out with. ace harry thinking for a a bit that he's gay because he feels different about men than women, only to realise that no matter the gender, he's mostly apathetic to getting in bed with them. (that's not to say he won't, but it's not the instinct, perhaps). ace harry with aro kim who respects him enough to never ask for more than harry wants to give.

oh,,... kimharry QPP??? kimharry QPP??????????

harry not wanting romance again because he's putting his deification shit and general relationship troubles down to romance (it's not romance's fault),,, kim wanting closer connection with harry but generally not putting much stock in romance.... also downplaying the intensity of whatever they have (ineffectually)....

they wouldnt call it QPP but it sure wouldn't be heterosexual platonic buddies thats for sure

[free-use-puppy]

abt me!

im a weird horny queer dog and i need to get destroyed by ppl with freaky genders or just anyone that asks meanly enough

im puppy, but u can also call me any humiliating nickname u can think of 💛

im 23, a virgin, aro pan poly, bigender transmasc, living in europe

mostly a sub n a bottom if u couldnt tell

i luv attention soo much but dming ppl first is too much 4 my anxiety so if u need a sign 2 send an ask or a dm this is it!

i like all gendered (or non gendered) language for myself!

i don't send pics

into some pretty hard kinks, dont worry abt pushing against the limits a bit 💛

please dni!

MINORS (this counts for agere and child/teen alters/headmates too)

if u allow minors on ur nsfw blog

NO AGE IN BIO (please. god. it is literally not that hard. at least an age range. please)

TERFS, right wingers, gatekeepers, truscum, panphobes, anti endos etc

race fetishizing, mysoginy/patriarchy, feeding, abdl, ageplay/cgl/infantilization type blogs

if u have men dni in ur bio (im men)

syscourse, vent, ed, sh, gore, agere

kinks!

edging & (permanent) denial, hypnosis, petplay (puppy), humiliation/degradation, gaslighting, objectification/dehumanisation, free/public use, cnc, drugs, dumbification, lactation, hucow, breast expansion, bdsm, monsters & tentacles, knots, breeding, cum inflation & oviposition, eggpreg & egg laying, genderplay, bimbofication, somno & light pain play

sometimes

heavy pain play, petplay (pig), omo

icks

kinks that are in my dni, blackmail, the word icky, trauma, bioessentialism, piss, scat, vomit, unsanitary/unsafe, knife/blood/gunplay, sending pics/videos/audio (receiving is more than ok!)

just not into

feet, anal

thank u for reading !!! 💛

(im also on discord at petbimboy!)

[asexualone]

(pls take the time to read)

Signs I should have known I was aro: Disney edition

I think this topic has been stressed a lot already. But here is my take, anyway.

Of course, romantic love had been, is and will always be one of the main themes in kids' movies. Why, I can never fully understand. I'll explain below how I like other themes more.

Some time ago, I did a post on the kiss/hug scenes in Rapunzel which depicts how much more I value acts of showing love that don't include kissing.

Not only those two. I have a history of hating Disney on-screen smooches. As a kid, I thought, "Well, maybe, I don't like seeing these characters kiss because it's a grownup thing."

Could you blame me? When my parents were in the room and a kissing scene appeared on the screen, they changed the channel. So my toddler brain concluded that the reason I didn't like watching kisses was because I wasn't of age to like it. Or something.

At the time, I had no idea that I was hand-picking my favorite movies by the level of romance they had in. Or lack thereof. And I was a very judgemental kid. Let's go through my original thoughts on some Disney classics.

Snow White — No. Just no. She's a child, fourteen. Marrying an older guy she doesn't even know. After he kisses her corpse. NO.

Cinderella — The age difference is a little better, I guess. So is the age of consent. But they only talked one (1) night and he relied on that slipper to find her instead of asking to meet all women and see for himself. Fairytale logic I guess. I didn't like how she called it love immediately and kissed the prince at least once that same night. Or how they got married immediately.

The Sleeping Beauty — Must I even explain? Aurora didn't even know Philip that much, had only met him once (if you exclude the "dreams"). And yet, he's her true love, the only one who can revive her corpse. Ridiculous. And yes, kissing a comatose body, ew. Also, the arranged marriage trope pisses me off, royalty or not. Aurora was engaged as a newborn baby, come on.

Mulan — Cinematic gold. I didn't know it back then, but the fact that romantic love is such a pushed-aside aspect in this movie gives me life. The songs give me life. Especially when the trio dresses as concubines and "Be a Man" plays in the background. An absolute gem, lmao. The sequel however ruined the story somewhat for me, too much lovey-dovey stuff. I like Mulan more when she's fighting than when she's acting all sappy towards Shang, sorry not sorry.

Peter Pan — Loved it, still do. But I did dislike the mermaids, the image of fangirls who are petty towards other girls. And Pan's brief "relationship" with Tiger Lily was nauseating to me. I couldn't explain it but when Pan blushed at her nose-nuzzling thing, I always pulled a face.

The Princess and the Frog — In my opinion, (remember, always my opinion): Tiana, this hard-working girl who doesn't belong to anyone, was lost to love. Well, not lost. But falling for Naveen in the course of three days? Unrealistic and kinda unnecessary. Sweet, but still. I adored the "relationship" between Ray and Evangeline more. Either way, it's a movie that I enjoyed when love wasn't that prominent on screen.

Aladdin — I love this movie because of the Genie. The relationship between Jasmine and Aladdin is meh. She forgot his face and didn't recognize him until later. Their coming together is a lot like that trope "first guy who treats her right sets the expectations and wins her heart". Usually that's a thing, not only in Disney movies but media in general. The female lead settles for the first guy that treats her right because the bar is that low. A good movie, all in all. Love how Jasmine stands up for herself at least. Not a lot of princesses fight against the objectification of women.

Pocahontas — I used to hate this movie. I didn't sit right with me: the racism in it, the manipulation, the murders. And the romance, yes. Pocahontas fell for the strange man who tickled her curiosity in the span of two days. I also hated how her father just sold her to marry Kocoum like that. I know it's tradition. Heck, that's a tradition that still goes on in my country. Maybe that's why I didn't like seeing it on screen. And Pocahontas doesn't even end up with John Smith. The second movie definitely ruined the story. So yes, she's the first princess who fell for a man in three days, TWICE. Needless to say, only the songs kept me from blacklisting the movie entirely.

The Little Mermaid — I actually loved this movie for some reason. I can't explain why, maybe it was my obsession with mermaids. Yeah, that was probably it. But I was pissed when Ariel exchanged her tail for legs. Not to mention human periods and overall, all the bad in the world, for a man she'd only seen once. As I grew up I realized just how f*cked up that story was: Ariel giving her entire lifestyle, family and identity up for a guy she hadn't even spoken to. I don't know why I loved that movie, alright? Hell I still do a little. The sequel too. Say what you want.

Brave — (I know this is technically Pixar, shut up) Much like the paradox with Ariel, I didn't like this movie. I can't explain it. Maybe because Merida wasn't the typical Disney princess I had been used to seeing. Now though, I ADORE that story. No, it's not because Merida knows archery... Okay, yes maybe a little. I love the aro-arrow word play, alright? Anyway, the way Merida fights against being shipped to a husband like the "tradition" I aforementioned asks her to, has always had my heart, even when I didn't like the movie. The focus on the mother-daughter relationship is special, I love it. Stellar movie.

Tangled — One of my favorite Disney movies, my favorite princess. But her relationship with Eugene.... Well. Again, three days. That's all it takes to fall in love. Classic of Disney. Not only that, but Eugene is literally the first man person Raps has ever since, besides Gothel. The bar is nonexistent for her, she would have fallen for anyone. He lied to her and she still... Well, I won't stress that any longer. Their relationship in the end is sweet, one of the few cases where we are actually shown that they would risk their lives to save each other. Respect that. Mostly, I love her magical hair and Pascal. And the guys of Snuggly Duckling.

Moana — EPIC MOVIE. The story, the culture, the character growth, the plot twist, everything! Loved it at first sight, at second and forever. Even more when I became aware that there's no romance in it. I don't think I need to say more.

Frozen — My opinions on this movie have always been changing, accompanied by mixed feelings. So the relationship between sisters was cute, but Lilo and Stitch made that more realistic. Anna's relationship with Hans, ugh. I think that for a long time I used the fact that he was the antagonist to justify my absolute hate for the way Anna "fell" for him in one evening. Again, Anna sweetheart. This is the first man you've met. The bar is nonexistent for you too. God bless Elsa for forbidding her to marry Hans. And while it's cute to think Elsa as a lesbian, she has aromantic vibes. Sorry not sorry, but she's also a God by the end of Frozen 2. Gods are beyond attraction, I said what I said.

Raya and the Last Dragon — Loved it, still do. Say what you will about "dragon Elsa". Sisu is her own character, and I adore her. And yes, I love the lack of romance in the movie. Make no mistake, I shipped Raya and Namaari from the first moment they smiled at each other. I swear on my name that I paused the movie and screamed, GAYYYY, at the top of my lungs. Luckily, I was home alone. If only Disney directors would do the right fcking thing and give me a queer main couple!! I swear I wouldn't mind the lovey-dovey romance one bit.

Of course, I've left dozens of movies out. This post is already way longer than I wanted it to be. But I think that was enough to make a point.

While I'm not romance-repulsed, seeing animated kisses (and unnecessary relationships) on screen makes me uncomfortable. As a child and as a grownup. It just doesn't sit right with me. Not to mention all these princesses who identify with their princes and specifically their relationships with said princes when they're perfect on their. Wreck it Ralph 2 made them a favor, I think, by making them work together and showing their strengths. Another movie I love.

Friendship just makes an overall better theme to apply to kids shows, my opinion. Family, work, self-discovery, mental health, happiness. These are all better themes to portray in media dedicated for children. Which is, again, my opinion.

And yes, Disney has been getting better. They've fixed the age difference and the age of consent. The female characters no longer depend on the male ones, at least not as often. They understand the assignment, alright. There are still many questionable things about Disney's reputation though, things we all choose to overlook for the sake of the good movies. But who knows? They might change. Hopefully soon we'll also have an obviously queer couple in a movie. Hope dies last.

[shadow-bouquet]

alright bout to drop a lil truth bomb for all the allos/hypersexuals out there:

being asexual/aromantic does not prevent you from having a libido, enjoying physical closeness or smooches etc

being asexual does not prevent you from being in a relationship, either with or without sex involved

being asexual does not entitle you to be the object of sexual objectification! if anything me not reciprocating means u should probably just hook up with someone on tinder/grindr/etc and stop bullying an asexual

being asexual/aromantic is not “being aloof” and i honestly find the whole “uninterested = attractive” trait to be incredibly toxic. If i seem uninterested, especially after the 50th time you ask; im probably not interested, and thats exactly why i act that way

being asexual/aromantic is not something to be changed by “meeting the right person” or can be “talked out of”. And especially miss me with that hurt puppy shit like its some attack on u. nah chief i dont wanna date/smush. not specifically u. i dont want that at all, with anyone

being asexual/aromantic is not a hard and fast specific rule! u can be whichever way you want to be and still identify on the asexual spectrum. there are many terms out there which you may find suit you, and of course above all its most important to be and feel like yourself! if (especially an allo) tells you “you cant be ace/aro and also XYZ” theyre probably spouting nonsense like a tea kettle left too long on the boil.

asexual does not mean: you literally feel nothing down there, although it can for some! (as it does for me personally)

for aromantics, i know i brought this up earlier and to be honest if you’re having trouble here please let me, or someone else you know help out: if someone is pressuring you into a relationship, and its not something you can safely reciprocate and they keep going on about how much they love you, and they might be confusing you about platonic love compared to romantic and you’re confused? chances are, a serious, classical sense “relationship” is NOT what you are looking for, and theyre trying to gaslight or manipulate you. personally ive had people try to “win” a relationship with me like im some kind of forbidden prize, which is super gross. please do, again, reach out if you feel pressured into something you dont want to do; be it romantic, sexual, anything.

also, can we mention that being aromantic does not stop you being affectionate? i like to cuddle, i like to smooch, i like to make the people around me comfy and happy. does that mean i want to be in a “relationship”? no. I don’t feel that sort of “desire” or craving or “need”. But i do enjoy being in a QPR (queer platonic relationship, essentially a friendship+ where u are a little more affectionate while still maintaining safe and healthy boundaries and communications) as well as flirting or just being cute!

also any sort of affectionate behaviour is NOT “leading someone on” or “being untrue” or hurtful. you are simply being yourself and to say that what is quite literally your romantic orientation is wrong is a horrible horrible thing. its something that ace and aro people have to deal with incredibly often because affection automatically meaning sex or romantic correlation is such a prevalent idea in our society. but that doesnt make it okay.

being ace and/or aro is not a mental illness nor invalid. simple as that. we exist, and we’re not mentally ill for having these orientations.

make sure u have ace friends to talk about this with! this post might help, but its also important to have friends who u can validate when things arent okay with and also feel safe around. feel free to reach out to your local ace/aro friend or equally just respond or shoot me a message! i always love meeting new friends esp in the asexual and aromantic circles.

that being said, hope u live ur best life and have a wonderful day! pls help where u can even as an ally and be respectful and helpful :)

[hephaestuscrew]

Hey Unwell podcast fandom if you're out there... I've got a headcanon/theory I want to share :)

In Ep2.07, when Abbie is working at the diner, they say in response to the idea of "marrying the ketchups":

ABBIE: That’s a strangely alloromantic term for such a prosaic task.

Non-aspec people don't tend to know the word 'alloromantic' (which just means someone who isn't on the aromantic spectrum). And most alloromantic people probably wouldn't criticise something by describing it as alloromantic. So I think Abbie might be aro.

I also think that the following quote, from Rudy chatting with Nora in Ep2.08, is interesting:

RUDY: [talking about his experiences working in a garage] could I please get through one stupid oil change without having to listen to Paul tell me what he’d like to do to Miss July? That summer... clarified a lot for me...

[talking about his experiences in college] can I please get through co-writing this paper on the path of Encke’s Comet without having to listen to Dr. Audrey tell me what he’d like to do to the new grad assistant?

Of course, Rudy might just be expressing his unease with the sexual objectification of women. But it also seems to me like perhaps he didn't relate to the impulse behind the objectification. Also I feel like "that summer... clarified a lot for me" gives off big 'I realised I was queer' vibes. You can obviously interpret this as him being gay (and that would also be a great headcanon!), but being sick of hearing about what people would "like to do to" each other is a very ace mood.

In conclusion, I've decided that Abbie is aro and Rudy is ace and their friendship is aspec solidarity. Thank you for your time.

[variousqueerthings]

well I’m about to do some cross-posting from my other blog, which means I got to scroll through my (messy) tagging for aro and ace stuff, which was fun

however I know I reblogged an asexual and an aromantic manifesto At Some Point, but they’ve done gone and disappeared, so here they are with a google:

The Asexual Manifesto ( Lisa Orlando, 1972 - more on Orlando and the Manifeso here: https://asexualagenda.wordpress.com/2019/08/01/lisa-orlando-author-of-the-asexual-manifesto-1972/ )

An Aromantic Manifesto (Yingchen & Yingtong, 2018 - tumblr with further discussion: https://aromanticmanifesto.tumblr.com)

Keep in mind, these are both manifestos and express strong political opinions. You might not agree with all of them, but if you’re reading I’d suggest trying to engage with them nonetheless. Let them sit with you like a loose tooth.

The other thing to remember is that The Asexual Manifesto is also a piece of history. This is great, in that we can link to a definitive choice to use “asexual” as a community term as far back as 1972 (although the term was used in various settings for a long time before then, often - as is common with queer terminology - as a judgement of character/mental illness symptom/other negative, but also at times simply as a descriptor of someone who’s probably asexual in a very similar way to how we’d understand the word today, without weight to it), but also that the definitions of Asexuality in this manifesto are framed around women and sexism and blend what seems to be a feeling of asexuality and the political “choice” to not have sex as one and the same, because of oppression by men and objectification of (presumably limited to cis) women’s bodies. 

It doesn’t acknowledge asexuality in men, and although it explicitly says that asexuality is not the same as anti-sex, there are times when you might squint at some of the passages. It’s also not intersectional. 

I’m not demeriting it by writing this, I’m saying that - like the aromantic manifesto - it’s born out of a lot silenced emotions, and so there’s something explosive about it, but it’s also of its time in its limitations.  

[nbapprentice]

ok, so you ask me “are you an aphobe” and i give you my answer, and you don’t like it, because “it’s just a yes or no question.” i suppose you’re not wrong, but i suppose instead of answering that i really wanted to ask you another question.

what is “aphobia”? you would tell me “it’s discrimination against people who don’t have sexual/romantic attraction”. That this is somehow on the same footing of homophobia and transphobia. But how is “discrimination against people who dont have sexual attraction” on the same footing as “discrimination towards people who have a certain sexual/romantic attraction”? this is an oxymoron.

“aphobia” is a flawed concept. it’s a reductive concept. it makes false assumptions. it lumps too many issues under a name that tries to erroneously put them all on same footing, as if they all have the same solution.

if sex was as praised in society as you all propose, then why the fuck is sex work criminalized?

fetishization, oversexualization, objectification isn’t sex positivity. you tell me “systemic oppression isn’t just law” and you’re right. still, i’ve yet to hear of anyone not receiving housing, a job, proper healthcare, etc, because they do not have a sexual interest in anyone. historically, when a person did not take a partner, it was seen badly because people suspected homosexuality. 

aphobia is a concept that assumes “having sex” is the norm embraced by society, which is straight up not true. Gay/bi/trans sexuality is pathologized. It’s punished. Even cishet sexual attraction and activity is pathologized and punished in WoC, especially in Black women. Fuck, even cishet white women get fucked over every now and then for wanting to have sex, ESPECIALLY when they try to make a living out of it!

Aphobia also assumes gay people are punished for “not wanting the ‘opposite sex’” which is 1. an incomplete understanding of homophobia 2. biphobic. Based on this wrong assumption you then think “acephobia” is on the same standing as homophobia, transphobia, etc. It’s not.

Compare complex attitudes towards people’s sex lives to the laser-pointed simplicity of homophobia, misogyny, transphobia, racism. Society uniformly DOES see gay/bi sexual attraction as disgusting, trans people as disgusting, women as lesser, people of color as lesser, disabled people as lesser. Society does NOT view people having sex as unilaterally Good and Praise-worthy as a concept like “aphobia” would suggest. 

I recognize the close link aro/ace people have with LGBT communities, which is why i think it’s foolish and unnecessary to wail about how aro/ace people should be kept away. I also 100% recognize people can get on aro/ace people’s cases because they’re expected to have (MOSTLY HETEROSEXUAL) relationships, romantic and sexual.

But that will not stop me from pointing out that “aro/ace” status is not a political class the same way LGB, and T are. Like four fucking people IMMEDIATELY running into our inbox with transphobic, homophobic bullshit to argue with us are only proving the fact that you clowns crying “aphobia” in our inbox have a LOT to learn, and that you don’t understand what the LGBT community is or why it formed to begin with.

[quietnqueer]

Asexual Identities & Feminist Her-Stories

This is a blog for Ace Week 2020 @asexualawarenessweek​, inspired by this year’s theme: ‘Our History’.  

I recently came across this talk on You Tube: ‘Ace and Aro Zines as Community Building and History’ which was delivered by Olivia Montoya at the 2019 WorldPride Ace and Aro Conference. It’s a fascinating insight into the history of ace zines. What got me particularly excited though was when Olivia started showing quotes from feminist speeches and publications from as far back as the 1970s which mention asexuality; and Riot Grrrl zines from the ‘90s and early-2000s which also discussed ace-ness.

Coming across this talk has led me to take a look back at my own involvement with feminism and how it informed the way I thought about my sexuality, prior to realising I was asexual.

I was involved in feminist activism from 2005-2008-ish, when I was in my early/mid-twenties. I was of the feminist generation that protested ‘raunch culture’; the objectification of women and the marketing of Playboy pencil cases to pre-pubescent girls. The activism I was involved in was very much underpinned by radical feminist theory and ideas; including that of the ‘woman-identified woman’. The ‘woman-identified woman’ rejects sexual/romantic relationships with men and instead prioritises relationships with women; these relationships can be sexual, but they don’t have to be.

This concept of the woman-identified woman, along with the radical feminist critique of compulsory heterosexuality, and just patriarchy in general really, definitely influenced the way I thought about my sexuality during this time. I didn’t identify as straight. But this wasn’t because I knew I lacked sexual/romantic attraction towards men (I didn’t really get to grips with this until I discovered there was such a thing as asexuality);  I did know on some level I wasn’t interested in men; I couldn’t imagine myself settling down with a man; but my rejection of heterosexuality was more an expression of my radical feminism: “I’m not dating men because patriarchy, grrr!” type-thing.

I didn’t identify as bi or lesbian either, though (the only other sexualities on my radar at the time). I couldn’t imagine myself with a guy; but I couldn’t imagine myself with a girl, either. In fact, the way I thought about my sexuality is summed up perfectly in one of the Riot Grrrl zines Olivia shows in her presentation. In an essay entitled, ‘Your Revolution Will Not Happen Between These Thighs!’, its author, Lauren Jade Martin, writes: “I wasn’t straight, bi, or a dyke - I just thought of myself as nothing.”

Looking back now, I see how much I thought about (my) sexuality in the abstract. This way of thinking was certainly influenced by my exposure to radical feminism; however, I wonder whether it was also a sign of my asexuality. 

Although I was in my twenties, I’d never had sex and never been in a relationship; I’d not experienced any of the fleshy, squishy-squashy feelings that (I’m told) constitute sexual/romantic attraction, and therefore a person’s sexual identity/orientation. This therefore probably made me more receptive to the radical feminist idea of sexual orientation being a political choice you can make.

Today, a decade on, I no longer think about my sexuality in this way. And that’s because I discovered (my) asexuality. 

Over the past 12 months, I’ve been exploring (my) ace-ness, which has involved lots of self-reflection and examination of my past experiences and feelings in relation to all things sexual and romantic. This process of self-exploration has meant I no longer think about my sexuality as this abstract thing; now I know I’m asexual, I think about it as something more innate; as an orientation; as something I can’t help but be.  

So, it was interesting to come across ‘The Asexual Manifesto’ (again, via Olivia’s talk, and available to view here). This was a feminist pamphlet published in 1972 and is very reminiscent of the radical feminism I was immersed in years ago, such as it talks about “reject(ing) any possibility of sex” (with men or with women), “unless our conditions are met… thereby prevent(ing) ourselves from being sexually exploited and oppressed.”

If I’d have come across this manifesto back in my activist days, I might have embraced its definition of asexual.

Reading The Asexual Manifesto now though, I find it more problematic; because the way it defined asexuality is different to the way asexuality is defined today. The manifesto says asexuality is something a woman can choose; that it’s an “efficient ‘alternative lifestyle’ for revolutionary women”. It does not talk about asexuality in terms of experiencing little/no sexual attraction.

And whilst it could be said, ‘yeah, okay, this is a definition from the past, so let’s not worry about it too much’; check out the Wikipedia entry on ‘feminism and asexuality’. It conflates asexuality with political lesbianism – another version of that ‘woman-identified woman’ radical feminism I was talking about above.

This conflation of asexuality with radical/political lesbian feminism troubles me because it distorts and negates what asexuality actually is. I don’t want my asexuality to be construed as a choice. Yes, I’m a feminist who has issues with compulsory heterosexuality; however, I don’t have relationships with men because of that; the reason I don’t have relationships with men is because I’m simply not attracted to them. 

My asexuality is something innate to me; that’s how I experience it; how I embody it. It’s not something I’ve chosen. It’s who I am.

There’s definitely potential for an ‘asexual feminism’; but it needs to be rooted in an understanding of asexuality as experiencing little/no sexual attraction, rather than as a political/lifestyle choice.