#can we talk about that please

[c1trvswurld]

Based off prev but begging begging BEGGING mouthwashing fandom doesn't spoley focus on jimmy curly yaoi. Like yes it's so fun to play with and write how their dynamic could be even more volatile and gross and compliant if you throw in possible past romantic fixations in the mix. But if that becomes the main focus....or even worse I see ppl demonizing Anya ( bc let's be real fandoms have a habit of antagonizing women who "get in the way" of their gay otp [especially in this case how anya is a very real reminder in game of how disgusting jimmy is and you can't ignore that to make him a "better" guy])

I will blow a casket

[poorly-drawn-ace-attorney]

ace attober day 3: bullet

[beemochi-art]

Did you hear Elon wants to buy Hasbro?

[beaft]

it is legit bizarre to me how hard video game creators and film directors and showrunners try to pretend that fat people don't exist. can you think of the last time you saw a fat person in a lead role? god forbid a fat woman? i can walk down the street or go into a shop or restaurant and see fat people everywhere but then i switch on the tv and suddenly it's like a glimpse into an alternate universe where no one has a bmi over 24. insidious and weird

[jay-wasstuff]

The funniest scene in the movie.

[gascreates]

a new star

[egophiliac]

IT WAS ERIC AFTER ALL!!!! I'm so glad we got to meet him (before Vil snaps him away with those Infinity Gauntlets) (can't wait to see what happens when we get the matching Infinity Tiara to go with them, there will be no survivors)

(sorry to be so slow/rough lately, just got a lot of stuff on the ol' brain at the moment! alas, if only I could spend all my time drawing incredibly stupid characters I mean I do but)

[raspberry-rampage]

tfw you're the only one in the group not obsessed with some has-been

[teaboot]

Social anxiety level: Chatting with someone experiencing a schizophrenic episode and becoming increasingly self-concious of how I'm just saying "That sounds really stressful", "I've never heard of that but it sounds scary", and "You must be pretty worried about that" over and over again

[mikqchoux]

Mentally Imbalanced

[throesofincreasingwonder]

You know what? I want a whole post for this:

Sex Repulsion is not the same thing as, or an excuse for, Sex Negativity

non-negotiable!

I am a sex-repulsed asexual. This means that I am uncomfortable and repulsed by the idea of engaging in sexual acts. This does not mean that I have an excuse to be repulsed by other people's sexual attraction or the right to police how other people engage in or express sexual acts or attraction.

Young queer people need to learn the difference between sex repulsion and sex negativity, and actively work to unlearn sex-negative attitudes. Asexuality, even sex-repulsed asexuality, is and should be fully compatible with sex positivity.

If you are uncomfortable with the idea of other people feeling sexual attraction or engaging in sexual acts that do not involve you in any way, that is not sex repulsion it is the cultural Christianity and you need to seriously work on that.

[contagious-watermelon]

Why do I keep seeing transmascs and trans men insisting or implying that all trans men are "female socialized," or "understand the female experience," or "navigated the world as a woman." Because yeah, sure, that can be true for some people. especially if you weren't gnc at all as a kid and didn't crack your egg until well into adulthood, it makes sense.

But they don't stop at saying they had that experience. It always comes with an addendum that trans men, as a group, all can relate to this experience. I don't know about the entirety of my demographic, but I never got even a little bit of what some of them talk about. I didn't even believe that women were scared of going out at night until I kept consistently seeing them say it, online or wherever, for years. I never realized catcalling was a thing until I saw some women complaining about it on reddit.

But they posit it as some sort of, you're safer than cis men, right? You know what it's like? Which, on top of being patently, demonstrably false in the case of myself and many other trans men, holds some unpleasant and often outright hostile implications about trans women. And they always deny it, but if you can't even conceptualize someone like me who grew up gnc, and never got the bulk (or any?) of whatever we consider to be 'female socialization,' what does that say about what you think trans girls went through, growing up? I don't want to speak for them, as I've never experienced that firsthand, but I can guarantee that (if you're even a little bit obviously trans) people don't treat you like a cis kid of the opposite gender. By and large, they don't get treated like cis boys.

It just makes me mad that we're taking this inaccurate framework that (ever so conveniently) puts trans people into the box of our assumed birth gender, and trying to fancy it up and use it with a faux-progressive veneer; never mind the way that transphobes use it to bar trans women from being athletes, or using the bathroom, or having access to any gendered resources they need. It would be bad enough to try and dust it off and use it even if it were largely accurate, due to the aforementioned connections to outright transphobia, but it literally is patently false. Not in all cases, obviously, but why are we trying to revamp this untrue, inaccurate generalization and pretend that we can make it 'trans-inclusive?'

[the-mouseyboi]

zooble ponysona 🤯

[mobius-m-mobius]

Lokius + touch in season 2 / (season 1)

[fangsnclaws]

I think people who are talking about the nonhuman packer discourse, but use "packers aren't sexual" as their primary defense of and reason why nonhuman packers are okay, are actually entirely missing the point of why this discourse is a problem.

Even when people do consider packers sexual, it does not change the fact that a nonhuman packer is still just as acceptable and harmless as a human-shaped packer. Something being nonsexual does not put it on the "morally acceptable" side of the argument. A lack of sex or sexuality does not make something inherently more acceptable and morally "pure." Sex and sexuality is morally neutral. Kinks are morally neutral. A lot of people, alterhumans included, are sexual beings, and genitals are (usually) a part of that equation - yes, even when they are tentacles or have a knot.

Thinking that weird things are only acceptable if they are nonsexual is a harmful puritanical and anti-queer mindset. Just because something is not your particular cup of tea does not mean it is harmful; yes, even when sex is involved. Especially when sex is involved. This is the exact same discourse that happened in the furry fandom; which has historically been hated because of how queer the community is. Considering the altH community is overwhelmingly queer, why the hell are we okay with bending the knee to anti-sex puritans as soon as something is more involved then missionary PIV sex with the lights off?

Nonhuman packers aren't okay just because "packers are nonsexual." Nonhuman packers are okay because there is literally no harm being done, regardless of if it is sexual or not. And worrying about what strangers do with their genitals is unhinged. Analyze your own disgust reactions I promise you that you will be better off for it.

[maybeyourelocalbi]

1963 the beatles perform at the beatles christmas show, at the astoria cinema, finsbury park, london, new years eve, dec.31st