#disclaimer that “you” in this post doesn't target anyone specific. there a lot of people online like that

[imeriayapping]

I'm so happy that at least in motogp i can breathe without seeing russians because they are always lased in f1 history, they still try to push that fucking shwartzman there too and into indy, they are in wec. THEY ARE EVERYWHERE

And I can't even express my fury because I'm not gonna be called racist/nazi/xenophobic but when people do same thing to Israeli it's ok. I can't be angry at nation that killed my granddad my uncle and probably many more in my family tree. I can't be anything other than thankful for support even if it's never fucking enough because my timeline looks like necrolog.

All i see when I'm online is either other Ukrainians trying to crowdfund ammunition for our soldiers without much success because everyone and our economy is exhausted or news about how new forces join russians to kill us. It's their only goal.

And you can't just fucking cherry pick those russians you like to say that they aren't guilty. They need to embrace consequences of what their politicians are doing. You can't be innocent and russian at the same time, one of very few truly good russians died recently fighting on the side of Ukraine. Our outlook on life becoming so individualistic we don't realise that power is hold by masses, that if they wanted for war to stop those "simple russians" could just stop going to war. Their system is extremely corrupt, it's easy to escape being drafted. Only times they protest is when they get denied another app. There millions of them and somehow just dozens of those caught by police for protest. They just don't fucking care and you continue to defend them online

[vm-sys]

disclaimer: this post isn't targeted to anyone specific. this post isn't to blame anyone. especially isn't to blame anyone personally. described problems are social problems and responsibility on them shouldn't and can't be put on someone's specific shoulders.

[pt: disclaimer: this post isn't targeted to anyone specific. this post isn't to blame anyone. especially isn't to blame anyone personally. described problems are social problems and responsibility on them shouldn't and can't be put on someone's specific shoulders.]

there's some idea that society is normal abt anxiety but society isn't actually normal abt anxiety.

anxiety is often ignored / diminished, not seen as neurodivergency or as "neurodivergency enough." there is some idea that anxiety is often properly accommodated but it isn't.

benzos are anxiolitics in the first place and they are heavily stigmatized. as well as lots of other anxiolitics. they aren't seen as necessary medication. they aren't seen as life-saving medication. they seen as "evil drugs," they seen as weakness, they seen shitty ok?

yes anxiety is one of neurodivergencies that get advocated for some time ago. yes anxiety isn't often demonized. yes anxiety may be easier to understand because most of people sometimes feel anxiety. but it turns trap too. anxiety isn't seen as something serious. anxiety is extremely misunderstood and trivialized. anxiety is softened and uwuified and it's not okay.

anxiety isn't seen as something that can and often is disabling. anxiety that doesn't fit in softened and uwuified stereotypes is judged or demonized as well (some "creepy" behavior is anxious behavior. anxiety may cause fight response. anxiety may cause problems with control towards closed ones. etc.)

also lots of world practices are anxiety unfriendly. guilt tripping, aggressive speech in activism spaces, reblog baiting, shaming, sending hate, "we vs they" rhetoric, etc. it all is part of internet culture and it all is anxiety unfriendly. (yes it may be also ocd unfriendly, psychosis unfriendly, ptsd unfriendly, etc. but it is still anxiety unfriendly and a lot of other neurodivergencies includes anxiety as their part).

anxiety isn't something "easy." anxiety is (at least may be and is for lots of people) actually disabling. anxiety may be heavy. anxiety may need lots of accommodations to live with. anxiety may be unbearable. anxiety may prevent people from doing almost everything, including "basic" things like communication, self-care, chores, work, etc.

anxiety is real neurodiversity. is real disability for lots of people. is real challenge.

it's not something uwu. it's not something easy to overcome. it's not something that can't "actually" hurt and harm you.

and anxiety deserve attention and deserve proper accommodation. including creation of less hostile environment. including destigmatizing anxiolitics (yes benzos too). including learning actual experiences from anxious people and not their trivialized versions. including recognizing "not nice" appearances of anxiety. including marking anxiety-inducing content. including living guilt tripping rhetoric in the past.

yes it hard. yes it's a lot. because anxiety is actual disability and disability advocacy is hard. disability acceptance is hard. work with anxiety isn't done yet. it may seem so, but it's not.

again, it's not someone personal blame. it's not your personal blame. world is actually hostile. it's work for community, for all communities. to fight ableism. to learn better. to find more inclusive ways of doing things.

it's responsibility for society as a whole, not someone's personally. but everyone may take part in it.

[brain-wyrm]

chise sells herself onto the magical market rather than commit suicide. how is it the same as actual sex traffic victims? (not accusatory, genuinely curious if its something that happens, minus the magic of course)

Just caught this ask, sorry for belated reply!

This is a great question!

TL;DR: For me, the sweet and romantically compelling aspects come across as rose-tinted glasses overlooking a parade of red flags.

I am not saying that the Magus guy is a trafficker (and he'd be a labor trafficker if he was, rather than sexual). Simultaneously, the context of Chise coming to live with him + their interactions felt like it (unintentionally I assume!) is —personally— too reminiscent of how "boyfriending" (the most common way a person is trafficked) works.

As a disclaimer, I am not an expert on this subject. I have had some training related to it as part of my internship.

First, let's define terms.

This is important with trafficking specifically because it may not be what you expect. I'll use the definition used in my training, stick with me here. The National Human Trafficking Hotline quotes a 2015 act, defining sex trafficking specifically as

recruiting, harboring, transporting, providing, obtaining, patronizing, or soliciting of an individual through the means of force, fraud, or coercion for the purpose of commercial sex

(An aside¹) Please also note that

The term “commercial sex act” is defined as “any sex act on account of which anything of value is given to or received by any person” (22 U.S.C. 7102)

This includes affection, love, housing, substances someone has a dependence on, etc.

As this same site goes on to explain, sex work ≠ trafficking. Rather, it's looked through the Action + Means + Purpose Model. At least one of each element must be present:

Action (recruiting, harboring, transporting, providing, obtaining, patronizing, or soliciting of an individual) + Means (force, fraud, or coercion; not necessary to prove if victim is under 18) + Purpose (of compelling person to do the commercial sex acts) Model.

So that might change the mental picture of what a lot of people have. This site shows the huge range of what this can look like. it doesn't have to involve anyone else, and it's commonly someone you love/trust. Speaking of... What's relevant here is the most prevalent method: boyfriending.

Boyfriending

So here is where I need to reiterate that I am of the impression that, in the metafiction, homeboy doesn't have a disingenuous or malicious bone in his animal skulled body.

At the same time, I recall (from months and months ago, so forgive me for inaccuracies) what other contexts would appear akin to "grooming". I have worked with so many folks whose life circumstance have left them with a chronically unmet need to feel seen, loved, kindness, stability, family, and so on. I see it get paired with really poor boundaries—resulting in developing a lifeline, except it is actually unsafe and unhealthy. These are the people that so many traffickers target. The runaways (~50%), the neglected latchkey teens, the adults whose stories have you wanting to yell "don't go in the house!" like it's a horror movie but they don't hear any of the suspenseful music.

And you know, that is what I think ultimately gets to me personally . Because that's the way I remember it is presented to the audience.

Hope that makes sense!

¹ as an aside, although my focus with this post isn't really on "sell yourself or or end yourself", I'd wager "choice" may be carrying a lot of weight here iirc. For me, at least, I am about those 'you can't truly say yes unless you feel like you can also say no' vibes.

[system-of-a-feather]

Okay I'm home now and I just wanted to once again say genuinely sorry if that post made you feel like shit or anything. I (as a whole) largely internalize and keep a lot of scientific critques on syscourse to ourselves because 1) we don't think anyone is actually stupid or blame anyone for not knowing the details of this stuff cause its not actually taught in schools and most of it you don't really get to know unless you actually get involved in research centers - we are ACTIVELY of the opinion the issue syscourse and the majority of the internet has with understanding the nuances of research is largely at the education system (at least in America) which is something I think I briefly gestured at but did not say 2) we don't want to make anyone feel like shit for something that is more of a social / systemic issue regarding how research is taught and that no one is particularly "bad" because its just so rampant and 3) we are prone to getting burnt out trying to put out information on how things work because of the amount of people who are more interested in arguing than discussing which is a boundary we have to remind ourselves to keep - and so when I read your post and made mine, I was 100% thinking about the backed up internal grumbles about it I've had for years and very very little about your post in specific - which doesn't excuse the vague posting, but I wanted to say it to let you know I ABSOLUTELY do not think bad of you or your blog for that post at all.

Honestly I don't think bad of ANYONE for make the similar error cause its again, a largely systemic issue with how people are taught about science and research. No one can be faulted for not knowing something they were never given access or resources into understanding and from personal experience, a lot of the understanding of how research works is decently hard to get to unless you are engaged in the field to some level yourself so really I'm sorry, I REALLY didn't mean to vague about you or anything. I had a blank moment and forgot what got me thinking and it really really wasn't meant to be targetted. ESPECIALLY the long explanation post, cause honestly at that point I was just excited to be in a good mood and to have the energy to explain my pet peeve of syscourse without it being 95% grumbles.

Now to actually some of the interesting discussion topics (DISCLAIMER AFTER WRITING: I get REALLY rambly so I apologize if its over the place, this is something I am very interested in and I actually have the energy to type about it so XD I have a lot of thoughts and it can be hard to organize it)

if the theory of structural dissociation isn’t actually a scientific theory, then what is it? why is it called a theory if it isn’t one? and is it wrong to compare theories to each other?

No no, it absolutely is a scientific theory that is correct. Psychology is a science and ToSD is a theory - however it's important to take into context what field the theory is of to understand what it means in respects to the field. Generally speaking, the term for theory is used to describe a collection of research and concepts that come together to support an idea that is found to be useful for predicting real world phenomenon. That is the same regardless of field, but its when we talk about the phenomenon that the way they are interpretted / the amount of "grains of salts" you give it change.

Theories in hard sciences are a lot more solid due to the nature of the concept, the replicity and the usually much more black and white nature of the phenomenon measured (time is time, weight is weight, distance is distance; the equation either accurately predicts your ball landing where it says it does or it doesn't and possible room for error is less), proof of replicability (additionally the concepts in more of the hard sciences tend to be very universal - ie given all factors are being calculated for, it doesn't matter if you throw a baseball or a brick, gravity's equations will work regardless), and concrete measures (meters to measure distance, seconds to measure time)

Theories in soft sciences are also held to a higher standard as it is a conglomeration of research, but they are taken and treated a lot more like "popular and predominant hypothesis" than they are solid theories like those in hard sciences. This is due to the fact that with how malleable and innately uncertain psychology is, you can collect a lot of papers and come to different details. This is due to the fact that the phenomenon is often an uncertain and undefined concept (identity is?????? consciousness is????? emotions??? how do we define that????, there is almost always an argument whether or not the science used actually even represents the subject it is trying to study), it is hard to replicate a lot of studies (different populations studied may result drastically different results, different time periods studied may result in drastically different results, often studies take a long time and / or require a lot of resources to run in general let alone repeat *you can read more on the Replicatability Crisis of 2010 in Psychology for more on this*) and lack of concrete measures (how do you measure happiness? do we use self reports? biological reports? what is the correct way to measure it that both accurately represents the measure meant and is objective? its impossible currently to have an objectively best way so most researchers use different methods according to their idea of the best way and it causes issues in comparing data - clinical psych has a jump on it by developing standardized questionnaires and diagnostic methods to systematically measure some traits like the SCID and PCL-5 but even those are under scrutiny of how well they actually depict what they are measuring and again, thus why they are changing)

Because of all THAT when we talk about psychological theories - this applies to ToSD and other theories of memory, cognition, stuff like Freud's Psychodynamic Theory (which we know is not rule of fact but definitely has its merits) that we understand that theory is often more of a hand wave and a brush stroke that is 'close enough' and 'the best we got'. When we talk about psychological theories, there is a much louder inherent 'its probably incomplete and possibly wrong but its what we think currently' than hard science's "we might have some details wrong and it might be an oversimplification but it works for basically everything thus far"

And that is where the problem with comparing it across is a bit of an issue. Hard science theories are "theories" in the sense that while they predict basically everything accurately thus far, there is an asterisk around "may be incomplete or too simplified, but this really works for almost everything tested and if something were to not work on it, it would be a revolutionary discovery and make a lot of professions heads burst" where as soft sciences theories are "theories" in the sense that they are suggestions on how really confusing and difficult concepts to understand and describe objectively work and as a result, it could be widely wrong, but its a solid step in the right direction to getting SOMETHING close to the truth of what is being studied.

I wouldn't say it is "wrong" because yeah, people who just brush it off as a fandom or whatever are in the wrong - it is absolutely backed by science and to discredit it like its a joke is absolutely insulting to the people that spent their life researching and trying to treat it and the information that went into it. Most research tends to agree with it - but personally I actually knew one of the largest name people who researched childhood trauma and memory issues (not going to state her name cause it might dox me some, but those in the know might know; she made it so a lot of people who took their childhood sexual abuse memories to court actually be taken seriously cause she provided sufficient evidence that children DO NOT make that shit up) cause I went to the university she worked at, and when I mentioned the theory of structural dissociation she honestly held back a soft scoff cause the theory itself is based on A LOT of assumptions that are not founded in itself by a lot of neuroscience and neuropsychology and assumes a lot (my commentary not hers: such as the existence of consciousness (which is a really really interesting deep dive)) that to her it was kinda a joke.

That of course is to note that she is in the RESEARCH focused field of developmental psychopathology and not so much the CLINICAL field - so inherently her perspective and view is going to be a lot more critical on how the theory is built up and based on research and less on how well it practically applies. Those in clinical psychology care more about the latter half which is it's applicable usage which is where the ToSD tends to be really really good.

As a "scientific research" ToSD is kind of a joke with how much assumptions it makes within researchers - particularly the more you get into researchers that prefer to take a more "hard science like approach" - but that doesn't diminish that ToSD sets a really good practical application to treatment that even if it is wrong, it is getting the idea good enough that it can help most people well enough.

In my PERSONAL opinion, I think Model of Structural Dissociation would have been a better name - particularly since a lot of clinical research that actually references it describes is a "medical model". I can't quote it cause I honestly don't follow too much into the ToSD cause I am personally more of a research orientated than practice orientated person in terms of psychological phenomenon (and as a result I also kinda scoff at it, but affectionately cause I respect that it is a solid model, just a shitty theory) I honestly think its only called "Theory" of structural dissociation cause thats what it was called on the Haunted Selves Book.

I might not be far enough in my education cause I've never actually taken a dedicated class on modern research on DID or anything, but ToSD isn't actually in most textbooks or anything or really necessarily brought up as a theory really much of anywhere - stuff like skinner and freudian theory are but I don't think anyone in the research field actually takes it as a THEORY.

HONESTLY, now that I'm not rambling about psychology in general, its a really DOGSHIT theory if it claims to be one, but is an excellent model. The thing with models is that they are meant for treatment and navigating / describing how complex systems work and less about being correct.

*was so distracted on explaining differences in understanding research that they never thought about the question itself or to simply just review what current researchers were saying about the concept at hand specifically to see that a large majority literally just call it a model rather than a theory because it HONESTLY is a model*

I'm sorry if this is confusing, I'm literally just infodumping and this is meant to be informative but I'm putting the professionality of infodumping so take this with a bit of a grain of salt as well XD

yikes looks like folks are vagueposting about our tosd post…

we said ourselves in the post that we are not a researcher or professional by any stretch of the word, and never claimed to be! we’re just frustrated with people dismissing the tosd because it’s “just a theory” as if it being a theory makes it easily dismissible.

honestly we wish folks who had issues with our posts would reach out to us about them and let us know where we went wrong… rather than just vagueposting about us ;-; we’re very open to being corrected and want to educate ourselves to the best of our ability! we participate in syscourse so we can have discussions and conversations, not so we can just flaunt our (apparently nonexistent) knowledge!

i guess our question then becomes… if the theory of structural dissociation isn’t actually a scientific theory, then what is it? why is it called a theory if it isn’t one? and is it wrong to compare theories to each other?

like we understand that the tosd is relatively new (with the haunted self published in 2006) and the foundations still need to be built upon. we aren’t saying that the tosd and the theory of evolution are the same thing lol. we just wish that the tosd would be treated as a viable scientific concept rather than a fandom or some nebulous thing with no real-world implications.

here’s our original post if anyone is interested - we’re always learning and growing, and want to do better in the future!

[mostly-mundane-atla]

Well I got at least two people interested (@esmeralda-anistasia and @deathsmallcaps) so why not.

Quick disclaimer: I understand that some fans can be very sensitive to this topic and take general criticisms as personal attacks and jump to the defensive. Please don't justify your ships to me if you have that reaction to anything said in this post. It's not my business and if I'm honest I really don't care. Your experiences are not mine and will not change mine and nothing I'm about to say is meant to be read as an insult.

Okay onto the rarepairs in question!

I was ten years old when the episode Zuko Alone first aired and Ursa fascinated me. She was so elegant and sweet, and yet the implication was that she was also capable of assassination. Her disappearence and the fact everyone involved kept pretty hush-hush about her gave her character an air of mystery and Zuko's memories involving her made him a great deal more interesting and sympathetic (i still rolled my eyes every time he showed up and thought he didn't deserve all the cute moments with Mai until The Day of Black Sun, and even then still thought Jet was cooler in every way, but you can't please them all). She had quickly become a favorite character and I've held onto that adoration for about 15 years now.

I also really wanted her to kiss Hakoda.

They had compatible personalities and deserved some luck in love after all the heartbreak and trials, and they both loved their children despite having to leave. Ursa was never treated as dead, just gone. She could have been anywhere and there was nothing to say she couldn't have crossed paths with Hakoda and his men.

There was also something about it I didn't quite have the words or media exposure to explain. Often, in fandom or canon, if a relationship is biracial, the partner who is fairer-skinned and/or of the dominant or invading culture, who the audience sees themselves in, is the man and the one who is darker-skinned and/or marginalized or colonized is the woman (heteronormativity got a head start on this one). There's a lot of ugly "taming the savage" rhetoric in this, usually paired with blatant misogyny that's supposed to be in the woman's favor (like suggesting that a woman could only be complicit in this culture because it was what she was told and didn't know any better). The woman's family and friends who oppose this are depicted as unfairly prejudiced against this strange man as if their distaste for people who can be or have been responsible for things like genocide or subjugation is the same as the other side seeing these people as deserving of genocide or subjugation for the crime of not being like them. Sometimes it's the other way around, where the partner seen as "more civilized" is the woman and the one seen as "less civilized" is the man, in which case the woman is often abducted or otherwise the man's defining feature is his brutishness. This supposed brutishness is both intimidating and attractive to the oh so delicate if a bit repressed captive/wife (as well as the audience) and can manifest as being fiercely protective of her, which is how he shows his affection if there is a language barrier between them. And if you grow up Native, this is easy to pick up on and often in the back of your mind, because at least 90% of your media representation likely has some aspect mentioned above.

(Man that was a lot of academic style analysis)

But the dynamic between Hakoda and Ursa wouldn't leave room for any of that. Hakoda, as an absent parent backstory, is defined by having to leave despite how much he loved and would miss his children. Ursa, as an absent parent backstory, is defined by the crime she was willing to commit for her children (for Zuko specifically, but how long would it actually take for Azula to shoot her mouth off at the wrong place and time and also be targeted by Azulon?). Ursa was the one whose willingness to kill sent her fleeing into the night. The culture of her nation betrayed her and made her choose between her own safety and that of at least one of her children. Hakoda is charismatic and a good leader, but he is also soft spoken and understanding, and above all else, gentle. He isn't here to hurt innocents. He's here to see to it that the next generation of his people will not fear invaders or raids or even know that snow can be black from soot. And he's someone Ursa can finally feel safe around and confide in, and she could be the same for him. Someone he doesn't have to be the leader for, to whom he can admit that he just wants to be home and let the tears fall.

I'm honest enough to admit that one of the reasons I liked The Search was that Ikem wore his hair a lot like Hakoda did and that was close enough to it being canon for me.

Another one is Jin/Smellerbee. Something about their personalities strikes me as being so wonderfully harmonious and I like to imagine Jin, smooth-talking and streetwise but still the most genuine person, being the one to sit Smellerbee, who never really got a chance to think about these things, down and explain that anything she might be is okay. That it's okay to not be in love with a guy friend who gave her a purpose and loyal companionship. That it's okay to like girls. That she can have more than one partner. That it's okay to be different from what's considered normal and proper and not have an easy word to describe it. And eventually she'd realize it's true. And eventually she'd realize that she wasn't teasing when she called her beautiful in a wild sort of way.

I also like to think that Smellerbee clearly has more specialized fighting skills and is very good at what she does but Jin is strong enough to bench press her no problem. And Smellerbee acts all tough (because she is) but blushes whenever Jin calls her cute or pretty because she's not used to it.

Sometimes Longshot is involved too. Not as a third wheel or the exact same kind of partner, more like a ghibli style relationship with Smellerbee. Like is it a gentle romance? Is it an intimate friendship? It's love and they know that and don't have to define it by others' perception. And Jin gives Longshot kisses so he doesn't feel left out, which gets him a bit bashful because she really could have anyone, she already has Smellerbee of all people, and she still finds him deserving of a peck on the cheek. They probably all bunk together.

This actually started from a fic I wrote but don't intend on posting more than snippets of. Basically, i was tired of a lot of fanfic tropes, especially those having to do with friends to lovers and soulmates (this world is not kind to aromantics and the last thing I wanted in my escapism was romance being established as a level up for relationships), so I wrote something to actively subvert all of them. Jet and Smellerbee were each convinced they owed the other a romantic relationship after all they'd been through together, even though neither actually wanted it, because that's how all the stories go. So after he dies, she remembers all those times that would have been romantic if either was actually interested, but were instead just uncomfortable because it was entirely social convention and no feeling. But then she comes across Jin, who she's never met before, but who takes her in her arms and reassures her and sympathizes with her, and in this tiny apartment in this seedy side of town, she feels safe. She seeks permission for every touch and kiss and tells her this encounter doesn't have to be anything she isn't comfortable with. And when Smellerbee has to leave, Jin insists she take a candle to light her way, and winks when she says she can return it the day after. She gives her an excuse to visit again. And Smellerbee blushes and accepts it.

And then there's Teo/Haru and Teo/Ty Lee. No special reason I just think both would make a cute couple and want Teo to be happy. He's a good boy, more people should love him. Let him impress people with wheelchair tricks and get smooched.

[becca-e-barnes]

The "minors DNI" posts that I've been seeing crop up everywhere by fic writers are always so interesting to me.

First and foremost, I 100% support your decision to post a "minors DNI" for your safety and their safety. You're being responsible, doing your due diligence as a responsible adult, and trying to ensure that everyone enjoys what you put out there in a safe way.

And I know you specifically have not said this so this is not a slight on you by any means, but I think you'd be more open to the discourse of such an interesting topic like this—the problem I have with some fic writers is that is them saying they will block anyone who does not have their age posted in their blog.

This, I believe, is an incredibly dangerous precedent to set. On the one hand displaying your age if you are over 18 seems like a non-issue, right? Sure. But setting the precedent that people should display their age in their blog encourages minors to share their age on the internet which in turn can make them an easier target.

Personal preference for me—I'm a thirty-two year old lady (plz sing this appropriately) and do not share my age in my tumblr because, well I don't want to.

We're all technically violating TOS anyway, so it doesn't really matter if a minor interacts with your fic or not at this point—by interact I mean like/reblog/comment, not DMing you to talk about sexual stuff. That stuff you should absolutely block/delete for obvious legal and safety reasons.

And while I understand the legality thing, if you are not explicitly engaging with said minor, there's not a whole bunch that could hold up in court. How many lawsuits do you think E.L. James gets for 13 year olds waltzing into a bookstore or buying 50 shades of grey off amazon and reading it? There was actually an interesting article written about the "common sense" engagement with this book back in 2012.

Anywho, you are right to ask and set a boundary, and do what you feel is right to protect yourself and using the DNI minor blanket statement is ultimately a good thing, especially if it's a personal uncomfortableness with minors reading your work. However, even if a minor just decided to lie and say they were 21 and read your stuff anyway, unknowingly interacting with a minor is just as bad legally as knowingly doing so so at the end of the day, we're still just taking risks. The safest thing for all of us would probably be to not interact with anyone or ask everyone to use anon, but there's not fun or friendship in that. Your mutual who has stated they're 25 could still be 16 and you wouldn't know it.

My perspective may also just be entirely outdated as well because I grew up in the internet age of it being a lawless wasteland and everyone lied about everything, so I don't see the value in trying to police my work when people will just read it anyway and I don't have any control over that at the end of the day other than to tag appropriately and/or not post anything at all ever.

This was long and not necessary to answer, I'm just always fascinated by the rigor at which fanfic writers are so quick to banish people for not putting their age in their bios when I think it is inherently more dangerous for minors to do so because it puts a target on their back.

Before I start, I recognise that we’re of the same line of thought! I saw this long message and panicked thinking that someone had taken an issue with my stance on it and I’m glad that’s not the case 🙈 Anything I raise here is in the interest of discussion and I completely respect your point of view. 💗

This is really interesting actually and truth be told, I’ve avoided any discussion on this topic for a very long time for fear that I won’t adequately explain my stance on it. I feel like I’ve had a chance to do that and I hope it’s been taken up by everyone as I intended.

I will admit; as a minor, I read smut. Without going into detail, it entirely warped my perspective on how relationships should look. To provide a little context on my stance, at 14/15 (and younger), I had no business reading the things I was reading. Unfortunately, I was in a “relationship” at the time and I fully believed that I had to engage with my boyfriend in ways that mirrored what I was reading. I ended up in situations I didn’t want to be in. To me, it’s my responsibility as a writer and as someone who learned the hard way, to ensure that younger people don’t make the same mistakes I did.

I do fully agree, minors stating their real age on their blog raises all sorts of different issues, as you rightly said. You’re absolutely right, to a minor there are no advantages to displaying your real age on here. Fic writers will block you, creeps will be more likely to engage with you. So I fully understand that this might seem like a reason to lie or provide no age at all.

Leading on from that though, if a minor lies on their profile and claims to be over 18 and they interact with my smut, from a legal perspective, that is not going to have any repercussion on me. I have put my disclaimers up, I vet as many profiles as I can and I do everything I would be reasonably expected to do in the eyes of the law. (This isn’t an area of law I studied in significant depth but that standard of reasonable expectation would still apply). I do as much as I can to protect myself and them.

You brought up 50 Shades and I understand your point but the issue here is not just the fic itself. If anyone comments/ reblogs my fic, I like to send a little reply back! I love when people take the time to give me feedback and I want to thank them for it, as a lot of other writers do! The issue here being that if the blog commenting is a minor, the writer would be engaging in a conversation about sexual material with a minor. And that’s fucking messy. This is mainly where fics differ from a teenager buying a copy of 50 shades. In that situation, there’s no interaction there between the author and the underage fan so it loses that personal element.

On the issue of blogs with no age, I see where you’re coming from and I see that you both read and write fanfiction. But I also see it from the other perspective given that a lot of writers like to do as much as possible to protect themselves and potential minors.

I totally support that’s a boundary that you set and it’s your choice. In the same sense that it’s a fic writer’s choice to protect themselves by blocking you. It’s a matter of boundaries clashing at the end of the day. I really do see both sides here. I’m a really organised person so honestly, if anyone wanted to send me a private message just confirming they’re over 18, I’d put them all into a list to make sure I don’t accidentally block them for interacting. But of course, not every writer would be able to do that and I’m sure many readers would want to do that either! I just see it as the only way to compromise on that issue and keep everyone happy.

Thank you for sending me this! I hope I covered everything and if I haven’t been clear enough in some areas, feel free to come back to me! 🙈 And I really appreciate actually having a discussion on here! It’s so great to hear others’ points of view in a nice, respectful way. Tumblr loses that sometimes! Have a lovely evening 💗

[sacred-pro-fiction]

Do you know how to shut down derailment in serious posts? A lot of times I try to talk about a specific issue and get dozens of people completely shifting the focus and making it about them (nothing against intersectionality, but I'm tired of comments like "this is even worse for [minority]" and "why doesn't this include [experience specific to another minority]" and "I'm not [target group], but [other group] also experiences this")

If its clearly bad faith derailment, I just block everyone who interacts with the off topic version, lol. Like I am NOT about to waste my breath on people who respond to "everyone deserves basic human rights" with "EVEN NAZIS!? SO YOU SUPPORT NAZIS???" Goodbye.

Depending on how genuine the person derailing the post is, I might DM them and talk about it, and sometimes that results in the post being removed, edited, or re-reblogged with a statement to get the ppl following them back on topic

If its not just one main derailing version thats getting reblogged, but a bunch of people missing the point, I'll reblog from myself with an appropriate disclaimer, and from there, anyone who continues to repeat the exact same point that the last ten people above them clearly already made- gets blocked.

Like if ppl are just going to take your words out of context or constantly detract from any discussion you try to have, or even argue with your own account of a lived experience, YEET.

[scripttorture]

This might be a bit out of your territory, so I'm sorry about that. My question has to do with operations done to the brain (corpus callosotomy, hemispherectomy or even a lobotomy): If they were done on an unwilling patient (who doesn't have the issues necessary to warrant that surgery in the first place) would it be considered torture, according to you? Could this result in trauma? If yes, do you think this trauma would look different from others due to what's been done to the brains?

Idon’t know anything about brain surgery at all.

Thatsaid- I can answer the question of whether unnecessary non-consensualsurgery is counted as torture and whether it’s traumatic. Anythingspecific to brain surgery I’m afraid I’m going to have to leavethough. Including the bit about whether the trauma would lookdifferent: I just don’t know.

Thelegal classification of non-consensual surgery (remember ‘torture’isa legally defined term) varies depending on a lot of things.

Sofor example a common non-consensual operation is sterilisation andthat’s actually put into a separate legal category to torture. Itis traumatising once the victim becomes aware of the procedure butmany victims are not aware of what’s been done. A common way it’sdone is by targetting pregnant women, telling them they need acaesarian delivery and then cutting the fallopian tubes or removingthe uterus after delivery.

I’vegot a post on forced sterilisation here that you might find useful.

Anotherexample would be procedures performed on children. In a lot ofcountries the consent of a child is not deemed necessary for surgery,just the consent of the parents, even if the child is old enough tounderstand and give consent. Cosmetic surgeries are sometimesperformed on children without their consent.

Genitalmodification on children is almost always performed without consent.It is often incredibly damaging and traumatising.

Intersexchildren are often operated on to ‘correct’ their genitalia. Thisis usually medically unnecessary and generally performed at such ayoung age that children can be unaware of the procedure. Sometimesparents aren’t told what was done to their child either.  

Aswith forced sterilisation this is traumatic when the victim findsout. In the case of intersex children this generally happens aroundpuberty when their body begins to develop in ways that are unexpectedor considered ‘abnormal’.

Intersexpeople can also become aware of what happened to them by observation,ie growing up enough and finding out enough about human anatomy torealise their genitalia doesn’t look ‘normal’ even aftersurgery. They might also observe that they have a lot of scar tissuein that region. Some intersex people are subjected to multiplesurgeries throughout their childhood and can remember this happening.They’re usually told the surgeries are essential for them to lead anormal life.

Thisis usually not true.

I’mnot an expert in intersex conditions and I’m not intersex myself.That- might be confusing to some of the people who’ve read that I’mthird gender but while third gender can include intersex people notall third gender people are intersex.

Theup shot is I don’t want to speak for anyone and the best source onthe trauma, unnecessary, non-consensual surgery causes the intersexcommunity would be the intersex community.

Otherforms of non-consensual surgery are rarer or harder to pin down.

There’sa debate to be had about where exactly the lines for ‘unnecessary’and ‘non-consensual’ should be drawn.

Alot of fat people are put under immense pressure to have gastric bandsurgery and that pressure may mean that ‘consent’ is not alwaysfreely given.

Iranexecutes gay men but gives trans people easier access to surgeriesand hormone therapies then many countries. And some gay men falselyidentify themselves as trans women to avoid execution. These men willhave signed consent forms with a (metaphorical) noose around theirnecks.

Here’sthe thing- nothing I’ve described, as traumatic as it is, islegally counted as torture. Some of them aren’t even illegal.

Pressuringa patient to consent to surgery isn’t illegal in a lot of countriesand where it is illegal it’s difficult to prove.

Unnecessaryoperations on intersex children are not illegal in most countries. Ina lot of countries genital modification of children is not illegaland in many places where it isthese surgeries usually happen anyway.

Forcedsterilisation is illegal but is classified as a separate crimeagainst humanity.

Non-consensualcosmetic surgery is, so far as I’m aware, completely untestedlegally. I don’t know if anyone has ever brought a case to anational or international court over it.

Thisdoesn’t mean your villain character couldn’t be prosecuted butthat prosecution may not be under anti-torture laws.

Forsomething to count legally as torture it must be:

Deliberately done

Painful or traumatising

Performed by a public official

Motivated by one of the following; obtaining a confession, punishment, obtaining information, intimidation

Unnecessarysurgery inarguably meets the first two points but could easily failon the other two. A privately employed doctor performing this surgerycould not legally be deemed a torturer and would be prosecuted underother laws. A state doctor couldbe deemed a torturer, but only if the prosecution could prove thesurgery was performed as punishment or to inflict fear in the victimor others.

Ithink treating the resulting trauma and the survivor’s recoveryprocess as analogous to a torture victim is probably reasonable.

Butlegally and more generally I’m not sure treating the person whoperformed the surgery as a torturer is the best idea. The situationis markedly different to the ‘norm’ for how torturers wouldoperate. I’m not sure the abusive doctor would develop the kinds ofmental illnesses that torturers generally suffer from as a result ofthe differences in these situations.

Thekind of injuries you’re talking about and the broader context ofthe scenario makes me think that sources on non-consensual surgeriestoday probably aren’t the best place to look. As I outlined thekinds of surgeries and the context of them is very different to yourscenario.

Ithink your best bet would be looking up abuse in mental healthfacilities and care homes. That would probably be a lot closer towhat you’re trying to write in terms of context and day to dayoperations.

Ibelieve @scriptautistic have made some posts on this. So has @scriptlgbt. Looking up lobotomies in their historical context wouldprobably also give you a lot of good sources; many of theseprocedures were performed without informed consent.

Ihope that helps. :)

Availableon Wordpress.

Disclaimer

[mpregwizard]

there are some collegehumor comics that explain this really well!

basically, as it was explained above, using words that are specific to a certain group and have a certain meaning waters down the meaning and changes it. it also minimizes the experiences of those people.

saying, "im so ocd lol" because you don't like dirty dishes makes ocd seem like its just about cleanliness.

saying, "im so depressed" because you're sad about a poster for your favorite show (with some exceptions) being sold out makes depression seem less significant.

adhd is more than "i cant sit still" or "i cant concentrate because im tired".

special interests and hyperfixations are more than "i really like this thing". i don't know about special interests, but a hyperfixation is more like "i am completely consumed by this thing also what day is it". (its also not the same as hyperfocusing, but its similar).

while i agree that the words "special interest" are common, there are plenty of other ways to say what you mean (for NTs). "this is my fave thing rn" or "i love this thing so much" etc. think of it like slang. how many slang words used to mean something completely different? how many are now something you would never say to your grandparents or smth?

if your 85 y/o grandma who likes cats said pussy, how would you feel? uncomfortable? it means something else now. she could just say cat. not to say special interest is just slang like this, but its a similar idea.

the sudden claiming of a word as off limits can be annoying, but it usually doesn't happen. (btw, reclaiming is not the same thing as repurposing, because it involves people within the group the word is targeted at. also, when a word is used in multiple groups, or no one can tell who had it first, or it has become integral to a second group over time, no one group has a claim on it).

however, not everyone knows or understands this, so i get why they might not realize the gravity of their word choice. also not everyone knows english well or at all. so, while its not good to use words like these lightly, it is also not good to immediately snap at someone or demonize for using them (not to say anyone was suggesting that), but instead we should try to educate them kindly. i know that a lot of people will probably say "why? they're just words" but there are some who will say "oh i didnt know that. ill try not to use them again". this does not mean let people walk all over you. if they're an ass, you don't need to be nice anymore. quick disclaimer though, some will snap back for various reasons other than "i wanna use a word". they could also be neurodivergent in a different way, and probably didn't mean it. its not an excuse, and everybody has the right to be upset about getting snapped at, but emotions are difficult.

also, someone who was an ass before might change their mind as time goes on! sometimes that happens.

i tried to break this up for my fellow "paragraphs are unreadable" peeps but idk if it worked.

ps, i forgot to mention this before, but i have adhd among other things, so im not a nt trying to talk over anybody. sorry if this doesn't fit in the post. i can never tell.

me seeing yall non-autistics misuse "special interest" as a new funky term like yall did with intrusive thoughts