#i hate rich people and i hate transphobes

[mutant-blogging]

sooo ahah

the other day (a few weeks ago now that i'm thinking about it) my mom posted something transphobic on her facebook, I called her out about it, some random guy started to try and make fun of me, she laugh reacted to it, i tried saying more shit to her but she said "I'm out" and deleted the post.

so i copied pasted all what i was going to say to her and i even said she's being hateful and no wonder her and my father fought all the time, sending screenshots of his statuses back in 2011 saying that we should love everyone.

she hasn't talked to me since! and it's nearing my birthday and i feel like... well.. guess i deserved this emptiness and quietness from her, especially so close to my birthday. i feel like a brat.

also this guy that bought my wife's car (i'm so grateful he did that dont get me wrong, we lived so securely for a while there) posted something on his facebook too that made me go "?" to myself. he's a rich guy, and i mean RICH... he flips $1mil houses and sells them for a higher price.

he literally goes to mexico for vacation it seems like every weekend. just the other day he blew a bunch at vegas and even earned ~$200,000. whatever yknow? but he took a picture of a homeless guy's ass and posted it on facebook, going on about how he was doing drugs and shit in a bush next to him and how the cost of living in california is doubled and the government there can't bother to "protect" them (them as in the housed people with jobs and no drug abuse).

i told him that if the cost of living is doubled then he should expect to see a few displaced and struggling people. that was it. and now i'm just?

i'm just sitting here. am i too much for this earth? for this reality? why am i so different? it seems like trivial things, but i'm trans. i was homeless once. if someone was mocking my body on facebook (in both instances) i'd kill myself. genuinely. why can't people have more compassion ? i don't get it. is there something wrong with me???? they're making it feel that way!

[thebreakfastgenie]

I really fear the takeaway from Trump's successes are, democracy rewards mindless obedience more than independent thinking. Republicans ruthlessly stamp out dissent and got a rock solid voter base. Democrats tried to encourage critical thinking and questioning convention and only enabled ratfucking splinter groups and grifters.

I mean, yeah, democracy rewards a party that can make its voter base turn out unfailingly every single time. If you encourage your voter base to think critically, sooner or later they're going to question you. And you want that, in theory, for moral accountability and all that. The problem is that people lose perspective and forget that dissent is all well and good but there are situations where you need to put on a united front, like elections.

One underrated aspect of Republicans' ability to maintain a solid voter base is that hate is part of their platform. Rabid bigots are willing to ignore a lot of other stuff to vote for the people who not only hate the same people they do but actively validate their hatred. That's why Trump ran those horrible transphobic ads in Pennsylvania. I think it's also why the Republicans have just continued going full steam ahead on being openly racist and found success that way. Democrats can't do that, because fundamentally their platform is not based on hate, so they can't appeal to that same psychology. Democrats have tried it with the populist hating rich people thing and that hasn't worked out and you can talk about hating the bigots but it's still not as effective.

Democracy basically rewards the lowest common denominator. It's just harder to get people to hear and respond to complex and often boring truths than it is to concise and sensational lies. This has always been a problem but social media has amplified it. And let's face it, "we are always striving to be better" is a more responsible but less appealing mentality than "we have god on our side." I'm not necessarily saying this was great, but for a while there was a certain veneer of class expected from both parties, which leveled the playing field somewhat. Republicans have become the party of the mean and dumb. They're not just appealing to the mean and dumb, that's who a lot of actual Republican elected officials are.

The only way to avoid mindless obedience in a democracy is to get your citizens to use their minds. Often mindless disobedience is mistaken for critical thinking. We all hate the Electoral College (as we should) and that specific system was a compromise no one especially wanted but everyone could live with, but there's a reason some of the framers were hesitant about direct elections. You're counting on the public to be informed and think for themselves and exercise good judgment. That is a tremendous amount of faith to place in people and as we're seeing now, it doesn't always pay off. I can't convince myself there's an acceptable alternative to democracy so I have to continue to believe the public is capable of better. It can be very demoralizing, though.

[faelapis]

trying to blame democrats losing on being "too woke" is so fucking rich. this was a center-right campaign. it was the least "woke" campaign a democrat has run since 2012. they completely ran away from lgbt+ issues, they didn't let anyone trans speak at the dnc, their senate race ads were like "don't worry, i also hate trans people!"

what else could kamala do. execute a trans child live on stage?

btw, those anti-trans ads were broadly ineffective. when polled, most voters said they were too mean-spirited or they didn't care. they were voting on what they saw as "economic" issues, not that crap.

so if anyone says that kamala was "too pro-trans", make them explain what they mean by that. because chances are, they're just a piece of shit transphobe who personally wants democrats to move further right - even though that just proven a demonstrable failure.

my fellow trans people, do not ever give in to despair. you are loved. most people do not want you, or i, to suffer. most people may be dumb or misinformed, but the committed bigot is a small minority. there are so many communities full of love and acceptance out there. and they're not going away, no matter who the president is.

[serge-starr]

If you hate Donald Trump and Elon Musk like I do, I need your advice, please read this

Red text - Why I hate them

Blue text - My problem

Green text - Why it's a problem/why I need advice

Genuinely, do I even really have to explain why I hate Trump? Is it not ovious enough? He is one of the most evil people ever known and there is NO SUCH THING as a "good trump supporter". THEY'RE ALL BAD. He is openly a misogynist and talks about women so poorly. He talks about them like they're s-x objects and says that women deserve punishment if they get abortions. He's been accused of SA by DOZENS, literally DOZENS of women. He even sexualises his own daughter and says that he would date her if they weren't related. Furthermore, he's cheated on all of his wives.

And what else? He is racist. Straight up, he is literally just racist. AND transphobic. He also openly admires dictators and said that he wants to become one himself. He said that he wants an army just like (Germany mustache guy)'s. He has a friend called Nicholas Fuentes who also has openly said that he admires (Germany mustache guy), is a Holocaust denier and said, I quote, "your body, my choice" and "there will never be a female president". Trump has unfair tax policies that only benefit rich people and fuck over the middle and lower class. I struggle to explain this and why it upsets me to my parents because my parents don't care about politics or understand me as a person. Even if they did they wouldn't have the same views as me. They're conservative and I'm alternative.

So my problem is that my Mother says that all politicians are narcissists. I tried to reason with her and explain that politicians might just be people who stand for something and want to make change. She said that all politicians are power hungry and all they want is money and fame. I told her that I was passionate about politics and I cared about it a lot. She said that I shouldn't care about politics. I tested her standards and told her "what if I want to work in politics? Does that make ME a narcissist? Or does it not apply to me because I'm your child?" My Mum said that I would never make it as a politician because I'm too soft.

My Dad on the other hand, has bought a tesla, for multiple reasons. Firstly because they're good for the environment, and also because he liked the car's design/functions and he liked that he didn't have to pay for gas. I have begged my parents multiple times to not take me anywhere in that car (we have other cars). My Dad asked me to explain why and I told him that it went against my beliefs to go in the car. The company of tesla is partially owned by Elon Musk who is the richest man in the world and oh my God he is an ASSHOLE. He has so much fucking money that he doesn't even need and once he literally prevented money from being donated to a charity for children's cancer. He is the definition of a priviledged asshole. And of course he's a fucking Trump supporter. My parents believe that I'm being unreasonable but I don't think they understand how much it truly upsets me. At this point, it's not even political opinions, it's a political fact. I don't support Donald or Elon, I never have, and I never will. It is not justifiable to support them.

I need your advice because my Mum has continuously forced me to get in that car and take me places with it, like school, my art club, to town or literally just anywhere. I'm sick of it. I'm sick of people seeing me get out of it at school. It's embarassing. My parents don't understand. My Dad said that if I don't want to get in the tesla then I can just stop going to art club and other places. He asked me to explain why I hated the tesla and I told him it was difficult to explain.

What if people at my school think I'm a trump supporter? Look, I'm always one who doesn't care what other people think, but that's only if I'M BEING AUTHENTIC AND MY TRUE SELF. That tesla is not me, it's not my thing and it never will be. I hate going in that car. I hate its size, I hate its design, I hate its company, I hate everything about it. I'm sick of worrying that my friends and classmates think I'm a priviledged asshole. I wish my parents had a sense of reality and would just understand this.

Please, if you have any kind of solution, tell me. And don't say something like "Oh just try explaining to your parents how you feel and why you're uncomfortbale". DUDE I'VE TRIED THAT 9892423 TIMESSS. THEY WON'T LISTEN. THEY DON'T GET IT.

Who can I call? Who can I reach out to? Who can I ask for help? WTF DO I DO???!?!

That's all! Thanks for reading

[olderthannetfic]

"Boyfriends" Imo, is a perfect example of the stupid fucking infighting in queer and "progressive" spaces. Yes yes, the homophobes and transphobes are also there, and some of them are in the perviously mentioned groups, but that's par for the course. It's just a lot more bullshit when the call(out) come from within the house. NGL I also thought it was a bit cringe, but who the fuck cares? I make a joke and move on, it ain't for me, done deal. He who has not posted cringe throweth the first stone or some shit. All in all it's probably one of the safest gay poly depictions, like... you literally have the archetypes of every boy protagonist group, smart, edgy, jock, rich kid. It's a huge fucking nothing burger, there's nothing there to actually be offensive, and yet people treat it like it's on the same level as some queer bashing anti-queer conversion therapy booklet.

But what I have noticed is that at large queer and progressive spaces fucking hate it when someone from within gets successful. Crabs in a fucking bucket my man, you can write shit as gay as you want, but don't get too big, we're going to shot you in the knee.

Weird thing is that you can basically know who's gonna get the most shit for getting big. A creator who only wants to draw their shit and have a good time? Right to the chopping block. You shall be sentenced for the crime of being chill and gay or whatever.

Some querulous* asshole, who shits on everyone else but does it with the "correct activism" voice? The Gods shall bow before you. Yeah these people might get their comeuppance but at large it doesn't devolve into as harsh hatred as with the former. Like, they can even be racist or queerphobic on main, and at most it gets a bit of an outcry, but that's it.

It's as if the act of just wanting to have a good time while being queer is a crime worthy of death.

Boyfriends is so fucking lukewarm on the "problematic" scale, I had to dig a hole to even get it on there. From 1-10, it's like a -20. And for what? Nothing. It's like a shoujo harem without the girl.

*My teacher used to call a student that. Basically someone who constantly complains and makes trouble and is kinda crabby. I just like the word, it's fun.

--

Should I be peeved that you think I don't know what 'querulous' means? ;D

[woman-respecter]

oh and one last thing. i cannot believe how leftists and queers are treating sarah mcbride. it makes me sick to my stomach. i can't stomach it actually.

bullying minorities who happen to be "privileged" i.e. rich, white, etc is so fucking gross and easy like bullying a child (and is part of the reason for all the antisemitism btw! since they think we're all whiter than aryans and that we are the most privileged). seeing everyone jumping with joy to harass sarah mcbride a trans woman who's an easy target since she's white and trans (white trans women bad unless they prove themselves by getting arrested for....palestine with jvp like hunter or they threaten to kill biden for cool points like ethel) for sucking up which. all minorities have to do for a place in this world is INSANE.

these are the SAME PEOPLE calling everyone a terf and being misogynistically distrustful of women/feminists because we're all a potential zio- um terf is so sad because 1) transphobia is a serious problem among cis women which should never be downplayed and a lot of cis women are transphobic. i know this because i've faced transphobia lite since i have a bit of an adams apple as a cis woman which leads to transvestigation :/ but 2) the "solution" isn't and will never be to act like cis women are the enemy/worse than men/to be misogynistic towards us either. 3) it's all so sad because these people are doing so much harm by being misogynistic "in the name of good/in the name of trans women" but they're just bullies who also hate trans women but get to hide it because they're #allies. they're "allies" who spread hate in the name of a people who want to be left alone and they spread that hate because deep down they hate trans people and want to make them look bad (not downplaying misogyny that is present in the trans community but yh). these people are trying to stifle the 4b movement in the name of trans women while trans women like veondre mitchell dont gaf (obv trans women are not a monolith). it's so evil. who needs enemies with "allies" like this? (also if you wanna deal with the transphobia the solution isn't to misogynistically try to shut 4b down. but they just hate women and it's never been about trans people so!)

anyways back to the topic. sarah mcbride really breaks my heart. they hate her and they've been treating her so terribly (theyre giving her the jew treatment 😓). no one has her back and it goes to show how the left is a lost cause. if you arent what they want, if you step out of line, they treat you like the conservatives treat you.

yeah i’ve been somewhat following the sarah mcbride saga thanks to the wonderful mariacallous and it is disgusting. i think in part what happened was that post calling her a “zionist” got popular so people wanted to look for more reasons to hate her. these days everything comes back to the Omnicause.

i also think that the trans girl tankies are kind of having a crab bucket moment about a trans woman being successful through grace and intelligence instead of posting graphic threats at people they deem subhuman from behind an anime girl icon on a microblogging website. they hate to see a class act thriving.

sarah mcbride is doing the best she can in a very shitty situation, and people who should be her allies are just making it worse.

[lord-shobby]

The new Jojolands chapter was HEAVY. A lot of people are (rightfully) bringing up the SA, but what caught my attention moreso was the transphobic aspect. Dragona is clearly depicted as transitioned but not passing, and the way the rich girl demeaned them really hit close to home. Dragona was also referred to with a derogatory nickname, which, while not intended, did feel like a dead name when I read it. Note that I am NOT calling Araki transphobic for depicting transphobia - it's important to distinguish what the author personally believes and what issues they want to express.

While extremely dark, it does not go unpunished, thanks to tiny baby Jodio burning the assaulter horribly in a bus fire! What other people brought up that I agree with is that Dragona really needs to stand up for themself more. In a similar scene in the first chapter and in this one, Jodio was the one to swoop in and save them. Dragona's independence and personal perspective is the next logical step to take their character, which does have me more hopeful for a future chapter to go more into detail about it (WITHOUT ANY SA PLEASE ARAKI). Maybe it could be a chapter where Dragona talks to Usagi about it, who knows.

All that being said, I don't hate this chapter, far from it. I appreciate Araki seemingly taking this very seriously, although I do want him to change direction to focus on Dragona's personal thoughts on being trans, rather than the way the world perceives them. Also, it was cool seeing Dragona and Jodio's dad for the first time, albeit briefly

[rowan-of-waterdeep]

I have a love-hate relationship with the character of Astarion.

I love the depth, the emotion, the sheer humanity that Larian managed to imbue into that little bunch of pixels.

I love that Larian pulled Neil in time and time again over four years to work on Astarion *with* him.

I love that Neil helped to shape Astarion's story. Advocated for him. Pushed for the *right* dialogues. Was the person to say "He wouldn't say that!"

I love that Neil is both passionate about Astarion and vehemently does not want to be him.

I love that Neil did such a wonderful job on Astarion's voice and movement. He deserves every damn award he's received.

I hate that the other actors didn't seem to get the same opportunity to engage with their character and put out the same sort of performance as Neil did. Because yes, he did an amazing job. But the playing field does not seem to have ever been level.

I hate that Neil in particular has had so many issues with fans because a vulnerable hurting character attracts the predators.

I hate that the other characters didn't get the same level of attention and love, and that it shows so damn dramatically.

I hate that Wyll, our only Black companion, got 6 months of Theo shoved into a sound booth with lines thrown at him and often no idea of what would be coming that day.

I hate that Theo seems to have never had the chance to really grasp or understand Wyll's story, let alone advocate for him, because everything was so rushed and he was basically burning the candle at both ends.

I hate that it shows so much in Wyll's story, his interactions, everything.

I hate that I love Astarion and constantly resent this fictional character a little because he gets to be an oil painting and the other characters are a collection of crayon drawings and sketches.

I hate that despite the glaring issues with the characters and questlines, Larian has still done better than most *major* game studios when it comes to thoughtful, considerate representation and diversity, and how far there is to go.

I hope that Larian were using Astarion as a litmus test. That they wanted to see if pulling in the actors at the start and engaging them heavily - instead of worrying about spoilers and leaks to the point of hurting their game - would lead to a better, more real character. If maybe having a single person advocating for each character would provide a better, more cohesive user experience in the end.

I hope they learnt that yes, people will engage far more heavily with a character when they're rich with detail and feel like real people.

I hope they learnt that to do that, you NEED to have someone in charge of keeping the character on track so you don't wander off into the weeds trying to follow every bit of customer feedback, especially when it's racist or sexist or transphobic or homophobic.

I hope they learnt that yes, letting the actors engage with their characters creates a bond that enhances the performance and adds veracity to emotional scenes. It makes the story feel as though it has a flow to it.

I hope that in their next game, they do better.

I hope that we, collectively, expect them to do better.

[chaifootsteps]

I keep seeing people bringing the bathtub snakes art Vivziepop drew years back as an argument that she's a bad person and like, no? At the end of the day it's a drawing, we've all seen worse from other creators (*cough anime creators that sexualize 5 year olds and incest cough*) and I really don't think a 'controversial' drawing should be anyone's downfall. Art is art and everyone should be able to express themselves or just draw something self indulgent.

That said, she's definitely a bad person and using that as an argument only serves to make the argument less valid. Why not say instead that she mistreats her employees and favors the 'stars', why not say that she's a transphobic, fatphobic, misoginistic rich woman who loves to sexualize gay characters and relationships? There are literally 100 other things she does wrong if I see the bathtub snakes thing being mentioned again I'm gonna lose it.

That's all, just needed to say something, have a nice day :)

I genuinely hate the bathtub snake thing. It wasn't wrong when she did it however many years ago and it's not wrong now.

This woman's left a charred, burned out trail of lies, scams, hateful statements, and ruined lives, and somehow you still get people claiming "That's all lies/nothing burgers, if you want to talk about something really important, talk about the bathtub snakes."

[oswildin]

not someone trying to spread the lie that I voted for Trump 😭😭😭

baby, let me hold your hand when I tell you this…

I live in the U.K., I’m British…

I also don’t support the tories/reform in the UK, btw.

and yes you’re right, I am a ‘punk bitch’, which is actually a movement that is characterised by the exact opposite of voting for a fascist— ajakjskajakajak. damn right I’m punk baby!!!

eat the rich, fuck bigots, fuck transphobes, fuck racists, free palestine, sudan, congo and any other places or people that are oppressed around the world and most importantly… fuck trump!!!! 🫡

so if you, anon, are blocked by me, that sounds like a you problem…

remember, it’s so much easier to be kind and spread love than fester away and spew hate. 💚

[racefortheironthrone]

Why People Are Wrong About the Puritans of the English Civil War and New England

Oh well, if you all insist, I suppose I can write something.

(oh good, my subtle scheme is working...)

Introduction:

So the Puritans of the English Civil War is something I studied in graduate school and found endlessly fascinating in its rich cultural complexity, but it's also a subject that is popularly wildly misunderstood because it's caught in the jaws of a pair of distorted propagandistic images.

On the one hand, because the Puritans settled colonial New England, since the late 19th century they've been wrapped up with this nationalist narrative of American exceptionalism (that provides a handy excuse for schoolteachers to avoid talking about colonial Virginia and the centrality of slavery to the origins of the United States). If you went to public school in the United States, you're familiar with the old story: the United States was founded by a people fleeing religious persecution and seeking their freedom, who founded a society based on social contracts and the idea that in the New World they were building a city on a hill blah blah America is an exceptional and perfect country that's meant to be an example to the world, and in more conservative areas the whole idea that America was founded as an explicitly Christian country and society. Then on the other hand, you have (and this is the kind of thing that you see a lot of on Tumblr) what I call the Matt Damon-in-Good-Will-Hunting, "I just read Zinn's People's History of the United States in U.S History 101 and I'm home for my first Thanksgiving since I left for colleg and I'm going to share My Opinions with Uncle Burt" approach. In this version, everything in the above nationalist narrative is revealed as a hideous lie: the Puritans are the source of everything wrong with American society, a bunch of evangelical fanatics who came to New England because they wanted to build a theocracy where they could oppress all other religions and they're the reason that abortion-banning, homophobic and transphobic evangelical Christians are running the country, they were all dour killjoys who were all hopelessly sexually repressed freaks who hated women, and the Salem Witch Trials were a thing, right?

And if anyone spares a thought to examine the role that Puritans played in the English Civil War, it basically short-hands to Oliver Cromwell is history's greatest monster, and didn't they ban Christmas?

Here's the thing, though: as I hope I've gotten across in my posts about Jan Hus, John Knox, and John Calvin, the era of the Reformation and the Wars of Religion that convulsed the Early Modern period were a time of very big personalities who were complicated and not very easy for modern audiences to understand, because of the somewhat oblique way that Early Modern people interpreted and really believed in the cultural politics of religious symbolism. So what I want to do with this post is to bust a few myths and tease out some of the complications behind the actual history of the Puritans.

Did the Puritans Experience Religious Persecution?

Yes, but that wasn't the reason they came to New England, or at the very least the two periods were divided by some decades. To start at the beginning, Puritans were pretty much just straightforward Calvinists who wanted the Church of England to be a Calvinist Church. This was a fairly mainstream position within the Anglican Church, but the "hotter sort of Protestant" who started to organize into active groups during the reigns of Elizabeth and James I were particularly sensitive to religious symbolism they (like the Hussites) felt smacked of Catholicism and especially the idea of a hierarchy where clergy were a better class of person than the laity.

So for example, Puritans really first start to emerge during the Vestments Controversy in the reign of Edward VI where Bishop Hooper got very mad that Anglican priests were wearing the cope and surplice, which he thought were Catholic ritual garments that sought to enhance priestly status and that went against the simplicity of the early Christian Church. Likewise, during the run-up to the English Civil War, the Puritans were extremely sensitive to the installation of altar rails which separated the congregation from the altar - they considered this to be once again a veneration of the clergy, but also a symbolic affirmation of the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation.

At the same time, they were not the only religious faction within the Anglican Church - and this is where the religious persecution thing kicks in, although it should be noted that this was a fairly brief but very emotionally intense period. Archbishop William Laud was a leading High Church Episcopalian who led a faction in the Church that would become known as Laudians, and he was just as intense about his religious views as the Puritans were about his. A favorite of Charles I and a first advocate of absolutist monarchy, Laud was appointed Archbishop of Canturbury in 1630 and acted quickly to impose religious uniformity of Laudian beliefs and practices - ultimately culminating in the disastrous decision to try imposing Episcopalianism on Scotland that set off the Bishop's Wars. The Puritans were a special target of Laud's wrath: in addition to ordering the clergy to do various things offensive to Puritans that he used as a shibboleth to root out clergy with Puritan sympathies and fire them from their positions in the Church, he established official religious censors who went after Puritan writers like William Prynne for seditious libel and tortured them for their criticisms of his actions, cropping their ears and branding them with the letters SL on their faces. Bringing together the powers of Church and State, Laud used the Court of Star Chamber (a royal criminal court with no system of due process) to go after anyone who he viewed as having Puritan sympathies, imposing sentences of judicial torture along the way.

It was here that the Puritans began to make their first connections to the growing democratic movement in England that was forming in opposition to Charles I, when John Liliburne the founder of the Levellers was targeted by Laud for importing religious texts that criticized Laudianism - Laud had him repeatedly flogged for challenging the constitutionality of the Star Chamber court, and "freeborn John" became a martyr-hero to the Puritans.

When the Long Parliament met in 1640, Puritans were elected in huge numbers, motivated as they were by a combination of resistance to the absolutist monarchism of Charles I and the religious policies of Archbishop Laud - who Parliament was able to impeach and imprison in the Tower of the London in 1641. This relatively brief period of official persecution that powerfully shaped the Puritan mindset was nevertheless disconnected from the phenomena of migration to New England - which had started a decade before Laud became Archbishop of Canterbury and continued decades after his impeachment.

The Puritans Just Wanted to Oppress Everyone Else's Religion:

This is the very short-hand Howard Zinn-esque critique we often see of the Puritan project in the discourse, and while there is a grain of truth to it - in the Massachusetts Bay Colony, the Congregational Church was the official state religion, no other church could be established without permission from the Congregational Church, all residents were required to pay taxes to support the Congregational Church, and only Puritans could vote. Moreover, there were several infamous incidents where the Puritan establishment put Anne Hutchinson on trial and banished her, expelled Roger Williams, and hanged Quakers.

Here's the thing, though: during the Early Modern period, every single side of every single religious conflict wanted to establish religious uniformity and oppress the heretics: the Catholics did it to the Protestants where they could mobilize the power of the Holy Roman Emperor against the Protestant Princes, the Protestants did it right back to the Catholics when Gustavus Adolphus' armies rolled through town, the Lutherans and the Catholics did it to the Calvinists, and everybody did it to the Anabaptists.

That New England was founded as a Calvinist colony is pretty unremarkable, in the final analysis. (By the by, both Hutchinson and Williams were devout if schismatic Puritans who were firmly of the belief that the Anglican Church was a false church.) What's more interesting is how quickly the whole religious project broke down and evolved into something completely different.

Essentially, New England became a bunch of little religious communes that were all tax-funded, which is even more the case because the Congregationalist Church was a "gathered church" where the full members of the Church (who were the only people allowed to vote on matters involving the church, and were the only ones who were allowed to be given baptism and Communion, which had all kinds of knock-on effects on important social practices like marriages and burials) and were made up of people who had experienced a conversion where they can gained an assurance of salvation that they were definitely of the Elect. You became a full member by publicly sharing your story of conversion (which had a certain cultural schema of steps that were supposed to be followed) and having the other full members accept it as genuine.

This is a system that works really well to bind together a bunch of people living in a commune in the wilderness into a tight-knit community, but it broke down almost immediately in the next generation, leading to a crisis called the Half-Way Covenant.

The problem was that the second generation of Puritans - all men and women who had been baptized and raised in the Congrgeationalist Church - weren't becoming converted. Either they never had the religious awakening that their parents had had, or their narratives weren't accepted as genuine by the first generation of commune members. This meant that they couldn't hold church office or vote, and more crucially it meant that they couldn't receive the sacrament or have their own children baptized.

This seemed to suggest that, within a generation, the Congregationalist Church would essentially define itself into non-existence and between the 1640s and 1650s leading ministers recommended that each congregation (which was supposed to decide on policy questions on a local basis, remember) adopt a policy whereby the children of baptized but unconverted members could be baptized as long as they did a ceremony where they affirmed the church covenant. This proved hugely controversial and ministers and laypeople alike started publishing pamphlets, and voting in opposing directions, and un-electing ministers who decided in the wrong direction, and ultimately it kind of broke the authority of the Congregationalist Church and led to its eventual dis-establishment.

The Puritans are the Reason America is So Evangelical:

This is another area where there's a grain of truth, but ultimately the real history is way more complicated.

Almost immediately from the founding of the colony, the Puritans begin to undergo mutation from their European counterparts - to begin with, while English Puritans were Calvinists and thus believed in a Presbyterian form of church government (indeed, a faction of Puritans during the English Civil War would attempt to impose a Presbyterian Church on England.), New England Puritans almost immediately adopted a congregationalist system where each town's faithful would sign a local religious constitution, elect their own ministers, and decide on local governance issues at town meetings.

Essentially, New England became a bunch of little religious communes that were all tax-funded, which is even more the case because the Congregationalist Church was a "gathered church" where the full members of the Church (who were the only people allowed to vote on matters involving the church, and were the only ones who were allowed to be given baptism and Communion, which had all kinds of knock-on effects on important social practices like marriages and burials) and were made up of people who had experienced a conversion where they can gained an assurance of salvation that they were definitely of the Elect. You became a full member by publicly sharing your story of conversion (which had a certain cultural schema of steps that were supposed to be followed) and having the other full members accept it as genuine.

This is a system that works really well to bind together a bunch of people living in a commune in the wilderness into a tight-knit community, but it broke down almost immediately in the next generation, leading to a crisis called the Half-Way Covenant.

The problem was that the second generation of Puritans - all men and women who had been baptized and raised in the Congrgeationalist Church - weren't becoming converted. Either they never had the religious awakening that their parents had had, or their narratives weren't accepted as genuine by the first generation of commune members. This meant that they couldn't hold church office or vote, and more crucially it meant that they couldn't receive the sacrament or have their own children baptized.

This seemed to suggest that, within a generation, the Congregationalist Church would essentially define itself into non-existence and between the 1640s and 1650s leading ministers recommended that each congregation (which was supposed to decide on policy questions on a local basis, remember) adopt a policy whereby the children of baptized but unconverted members could be baptized as long as they did a ceremony where they affirmed the church covenant. This proved hugely controversial and ministers and laypeople alike started publishing pamphlets, and voting in opposing directions, and un-electing ministers who decided in the wrong direction, and accusing one another of being witches. (More on that in a bit.)

And then the Great Awakening - which to be fair, was a major evangelical effort by the Puritan Congregationalist Church, so it's not like there's no link between evangelical - which was supposed to promote Congregational piety ended up dividing the Church and pretty soon the Congregationalist Church is dis-established and it's safe to be a Quaker or even a Catholic on the streets of Boston.

But here's the thing - if we look at which denominations in the United States can draw a direct line from themselves to the Congregationalist Church of the Puritans, it's the modern Congregationalists who are entirely mainstream Protestants whose churches are pretty solidly liberal in their politics, the United Church of Christ which is extremely cultural liberal, and it's the Unitarian Universalists who are practically issued DSA memberships. (I say this with love as a fellow comrade.)

By contrast, modern evangelical Christianity (although there's a complicated distinction between evangelical and fundamentalist that I don't have time to get into) in the United States is made up of an entirely different set of denominations - here, we're talking Baptists, Pentacostalists, Methodists, non-denominational churches, and sometimes Presbyterians.

The Puritans Were Dour Killjoys Who Hated Sex:

This one owes a lot to Nathaniel Hawthorne's Scarlet Letter.

The reality is actually the opposite - for their time, the Puritans were a bunch of weird hippies. At a time when most major religious institutions tended to emphasize the sinful nature of sex and Catholicism in particular tended to emphasize the moral superiority of virginity, the Puritans stressed that sexual pleasure was a gift from God, that married couples had an obligation to not just have children but to get each other off, and both men and women could be taken to court and fined for failing to fulfill their maritial obligations.

The Puritans also didn't have much of a problem with pre-marital sex. As long as there was an absolute agreement that you were going to get married if and when someone ended up pregnant, Puritan elders were perfectly happy to let young people be young people. Indeed, despite the objection of Jonathan Edwards and others there was an (oddly similar to modern Scandinavian customs) old New England custom of "bundling," whereby a young couple would be put into bed together by their parents with a sack or bundle tied between them as a putative modesty shield, but where everyone involved knew that the young couple would remove the bundle as soon as the lights were turned out.

One of my favorite little social circumlocutions is that there was a custom of pretending that a child clearly born out of wedlock was actually just born prematurely to a bride who was clearly nine months along, leading to a rash of surprisingly large and healthy premature births being recorded in the diary of Puritan midwife Martha Ballard. Historians have even applied statistical modeling to show that about 30-40% of births in colonial America were pre-mature.

But what about non-sexual dourness? Well, here we have to understand that, while they were concerned about public morality, the Puritans were simultaneously very strict when it came to matters of religion and otherwise normal people who liked having fun. So if you go down the long list of things that Puritans banned that has landed them with a reputation as a bunch of killjoys, they usually hide some sort of religious motivation.

So for example, let's take the Puritan iconoclastic tendency to smash stained glass windows, whitewash church walls, and smash church organs during the English Civil War - all of these things have to do with a rejection of Catholicism, and in the case of church organs a belief that the only kind of music that should be allowed in church is the congregation singing psalms as an expression of social equality. At the same time, Puritans enjoyed art in a secular context and often had portraits of themselves made and paintings hung on their walls, and they owned musical instruments in their homes.

What about the wearing nothing but black clothing? See, in our time wearing nothing but black is considered rather staid (or Goth), but in the Early Modern period the dyes that were needed to produce pure black cloth were incredibly expensive - so wearing all black was a sign of status and wealth, hence why the Hapsburgs started emphasizing wearing all-black in the same period. However, your ordinary Puritan couldn't afford an all-black attire and would have worn quite colorful (but much cheaper) browns and blues and greens.

What about booze and gambling and sports and the theater and other sinful pursuits? Well, the Puritans were mostly ok with booze - every New England village had its tavern - but they did regulate how much they could serve, again because they were worried that drunkenness would lead to blasphemy. Likewise, the Puritans were mostly ok with gambling, and they didn't mind people playing sports - except that they went absolutely beserk about drinking, gambling, and sports if they happened on the Sabbath because the Puritans really cared about the Sabbath and Charles I had a habit of poking them about that issue. They were against the theater because of its association with prostitution and cross-dressing, though, I can't deny that. On the other hand, the Puritans were also morally opposed to bloodsports like bear-baiting, cock-fighting, and bare-knuckle boxing because of the violence it did to God's creatures, which I guess makes them some of the first animal rights activsts?

They Banned Christmas:

Again, this comes down to a religious thing, not a hatred of presents and trees - keep in mind that the whole presents-and-trees paradigm of Christmas didn't really exist until the 19th century and Dickens' Christmas Carol, so what we're really talking about here is a conflict over religious holidays - so what people were complaining about was not going to church an extra day in the year. I don't get it, personally.

See, the thing is that Puritans were known for being extremely close Bible readers, and one of the things that you discover almost immediately if you even cursorily read the New Testament is that Christ was clearly not born on December 25th. Which meant that the whole December 25th thing was a false religious holiday, which is why they banned it.

The Puritans Were Democrats:

One thing that I don't think Puritans get enough credit for is that, at a time when pretty much the whole of European society was some form of monarchist, the Puritans were some of the few people out there who really committed themselves to democratic principles.

As I've already said, this process starts when John Liliburne, an activist and pamphleteer who promoted the concept of universal human rights (what he called "freeborn rights"), took up the anti-Laudian cause and it continued through the mobilization of large numbers of Puritans to campaign for election to the Long Parliament.

There, not only did the Puritans vote to revenge themselves on their old enemy William Laud, but they also took part in a gradual process of Parliamentary radicalization, starting with the impeachment of Strafford as the architect of arbitrary rule, the passage of the Triennal Acts, the re-statement that non-Parliamentary taxation was illegal, the Grand Remonstrance, and the Militia Ordinance.

Then over the course of the war, Puritans served with distinction in the Parliamentary army, especially and disproportionately in the New Model Army where they beat the living hell out of the aristocratic armies of Charles I, while defying both the expectations and active interference of the House of Lords.

At this point, I should mention that during this period the Puritans divided into two main factions - Presbyterians, who developed a close political and religious alliance with the Scottish Covenanters who had secured the Presbyterian Church in Scotland during the Bishops' Wars and who were quite interested in extending an established Presbyterian Church; and Independents, who advocated local congregationalism (sound familiar) and opposed the concept of established churches.

Finally, we have the coming together of the Independents of the New Model Army and the Leveller movement - during the war, John Liliburne had served with bravery and distinction at Edgehill and Marston Moore, and personally capturing Tickhill Castle without firing a shot. His fellow Leveller Thomas Rainsborough proved a decisive cavalry commander at Naseby, Leicester, the Western Campaign, and Langport, a gifted siege commander at Bridgwater, Bristol, Berkeley Castle, Oxford, and Worcester. Thus, when it came time to hold the Putney Debates, the Independent/Leveller bloc had both credibility within the New Model Army and the only political program out there. Their proposal:

redistricting of Parliament on the basis of equal population; i.e one man, one vote.

the election of a Parliament every two years.

freedom of conscience.

equality under the law.

In the context of the 17th century, this was dangerously radical stuff and it prompted Cromwell and Fairfax into paroxyms of fear that the propertied were in danger of being swamped by democratic enthusiasm - leading to the imprisonment of Lilburne and the other Leveller leaders and ultimately the violent suppression of the Leveller rank-and-file.

As for Cromwell, well - even the Quakers produced Richard Nixon.

[atwoodsfemalefantasy]

hey people! just a reminder that Vance quite literally said that he would willingly lie to Americans and make up a false story to feed them!

just a reminder that Trump has been convicted of actual real like rape!

just a reminder that Trump is a convicted felon!

Just a reminder that Trump dodged the draft and called vets "losers"!

Just a reminder that most of Trumps cabinet (aka the people HE CHOSE) aren't voting for him!

Just a reminder that project 2025 involves the government tracking women's pregnancies!

Just a reminder that Harris is pro ceasefire between Israel and Gaza (she can't call it a genoxide because Israel is our ally, and she can't risk upsetting them right now, but she CAN and IS calling for peace!)

Just a reminder that Trump mocked the disabled

Just a reminder that Harris came from a working class family and worked for what she has while Trump was always rich and had it handed to him!

Just a reminder that Trump sold his own modified Bibles, which is incredibly NOT GOOD CHRISTIAN BEHAVIOR PEOPLE

Just a reminder that Walz and Harris are both gun owners, so they are pro-gun, but they also understand the danger of guns, so they are pro-gun regulation! Walz feels this way because he fears for his kids' lives!

Just a reminder that Trump is a rapist. just thought i'd say it again.

Just a reminder that Harris is young! Trump is old as balls!

Just a reminder that Trump said he'd sleep with his own daughter if she wasn't his kid!

Just a reminder that Trump/Vance want to take away no fault divorce! mo fault divorce basically just protects women from their abusers! (but also allows for couples to divorce without financially harming the other, and to even get remarried if they wanted!)

Just a reminder that Trump made up a blatant racist lie! and Vance admitted it was a lie, yet kept on saying it!

Just a reminder that Trump made his hotel unusable for disabled people on purpose!

Just a reminder that if you're a woman, you might be republican, but if you value your life, you better be voting blue! even if you vote red again next election. (come on yall, take a page out of my conservative grandmas book. she's a republican, but she has the common sense to know Trump will steal her human rights!)

Just a reminder that Trump will make the rich richer, while Harris has been middle class and wants to help the middle class!

Just a reminder that Trump staged an insurrection. that's about as anti-American as you can get!

Just a reminder that abortion bans are unconstitutional, as the constitution demands a separation of church and state!

Just a reminder to all you transphobic queer people- once they come for trans people, they're coming for you! so stick by your own community damn it! stonewall was started by a trans black woman

Just a reminder to transphobic women that once they restrict trans women's rights, they're coming for ALL women's rights. this is only the beginning

Just a reminder that "Tampon Tim" should be a compliment, not an insult! what is so bad about helping women not bleed everywhere people??

Just a reminder that project 2025 brings back the draft (and guess who racist Trump and Vance will draft first! go on, guess!)

Just a reminder that you might not like Kamala Harris, but Trump is much worse, so settle.

Just a reminder that i saw a real Trump commercial that said (and i quote) "Crazy Kamala is for THEY/THEM. Trump is for you". i just think it's funny

Just a reminder that if you're mad Trump got shot, there's a very simple solution! it's called gun control, and it makes sure only people who are mentally stable and will use guns safely get guns! except yall have been calling it "taking away the second amendment"

Just a reminder that there is a goddamn genocide happening in Gaza. one candidate is a racist motherfucker who hates Muslims. one is a woman who wants a cease fire. go on, make that choice (look, again, Harris is not perfect on the Israel/Gaza thing but TRUMP IS A RACIST MF. HE WILL BE W O R S E!)

Just a reminder to women that we are STILL being ridiculed and not taken seriously because we don't have children. FUCK THAT THANK YOU

Just a reminder that Trump is a little bitch baby (or to quote my man Jack Antonoff a little bitch baby bitch muffin) who used AI to make Taylor Swift support him, and then when she released (a very polite actually) statement supporting Harris he was a little whiny bitch baby who tweeted "I HATE TAYLOR SWIFT!". you know, the way a competent grown up man does. not a kindergartner who had his little ball taken away.

Just a reminder to fucking vote. vote vote vote vote votevotevotevotevotevotevote! especially if you live in a battleground state! if you can't vote, get an absentee ballot. this is very important, and every vote counts.

Just a reminder that one candidate is an elderly, decrepit, extremely unhealthy, rich, military-hating, racist, rapist, pedophile, pervert etc etc etc etc.... and one is a woman liberals have a few problems with.

[joanofarcs-stigmata]

I have two important questions for you:

Why do you believe other gods don't exist? Why should I take any claims of your experience with the divine seriously if you won't do the same for me? Why would any of your experiences be truth if you wouldn't extend the same olive branch to others?

If Jesus suddenly told you to detransition would you listen? Or would you suddenly reject him? Are you only trans because your god is letting you be trans? Because he doesn't let a lot of other people be trans, it seems like your just someone who he sees as useful to grant certain rights because he can't get away with anything else.

i am a firm believer in inter faith discussion and respect. a two second conversation in good faith would show you that, but you arent here in good faith, are you? you're evangelizing, and id bet if i tried to do the same you'd explode. you're a raging hypocrite, but still, im gonna humor you.

i think other people can absolutely have rich, fulfilling lives with the divine and have in depth spiritual experiences that are nothing like mine and do not involve my god, and that those are beautiful and worthy of respect and protection. me not thinking your goddess is as real as my trinity does not absolve any of that. my jewish and muslim siblings in god do not believe what i believe, and still i respect, protect, and uphold them. id do the same for any (neo)pagan, as i have, given my closest and longest friend is pagan. i've been to his yule celebrations, just as he's been to my christmas services, because we respect and care for each other. something you clearly do not see as important when it comes to me and people like me.

i dont have to worry about jesus telling me to detransition, because he wouldn't. simple as that. If Hel told you to beat a gay man to a pulp, would you? im trans not because god is 'letting me' (god doesn't have to 'let me' do anything, i have free will, and our relationship is built on mutual respect. but you know nothing about my theology, so i wouldnt expect you to know that) i'm trans because i was born this way. just as god created me in my mother's womb, he created me trans. or is the term 'born this way' not acceptable if god is the reason im born this way?

THE CHURCH IS NOT GOD. frankly, i dont give a fuck if the church hates me! because i know, deep in my soul, that god does not! I was literally fired from my position as a teacher at a church for being trans. i know the transphobia of the church personally. but you do! not! actually! care! you are weaponizing oppression to justify your issues! shame on you

and guess what? you are a major fucking transphobe. idc enough to go on your blog and see if you're trans, but even if you are, harassing a trans man and trying to evangelize bc you see him as too stupid to make his own decisions is more than just rude, it's transphobic. go pray to Hel for a hug or something, i'm going to church to eat the flesh of my god and guzzle his blood.

[bi-kisses]

I'm tired of pretending "if you engage with Harry Potter as a fandom at all, you're putting money into JKR's pocket and killing trans people" is at all 1) true 2) rational

Okay I'm going to tell you something: Joanne Rowling is rich. Beyond your wildest dreams. She has already made her literal billion dollars off of Harry Potter. She is not waiting for each penny and dime to trickle in so that she can put it into the Kill Trans People organization.

People writing fanfiction or drawing art of this franchise are not the ones keeping it financially afloat. People continuing to personally enjoy the books they've owned for ten years are not contributing to the oppression of trans people.

Before you write your angry retort, let it be known YOU CAN STILL HATE HARRY POTTER. YOU CAN STILL DISTRUST PEOPLE WHO LIKE HARRY POTTER. YOU ARE WITHIN YOUR RIGHTS TO DISTANCE YOURSELF FROM IT.

There's nothing wrong with that! It's understandable! But disliking the associations a fandom has does not mean those who still engage with the fandom are actually harming you (or anyone else for that matter).

Actively putting your own money into Harry Potter merchandise does, however, contribute to the thousands that JKR continues to receive. Are you literally killing trans people? Again, no, but that is direct support of a transphobic POS. It tells the corporations who produce that merchandise that JKR is still profitable, and may in fact lead to more multi million dollar deals being made with her.

Contrary to what some people on the internet may think, corporations are not keeping track of money-free fandom engagement. So no, continuing to create fan works will not convince any marketing team that they should keep pouring resources into the franchise. It will not line Joanne's pockets.

In the end, and this is important, you can feel however which way you want about Harry Potter. I know trans women who love it, I know trans women who hate it. Neither of them has the "correct" opinion. Harry Potter is a nostalgic touchstone for millions, and JKR's politics doesn't change that.

[jaundicesenator]

i'm bored on a road trip so more headcanons but this time not richie

-peter used to carry a fannypack full of sweets but stopped after the sweets kept getting stolen, he now hides them in his locker

-he has alternating times where he staysbwith his brother and his parents.

-after he started dating steph, ted started making very loud cringey jokes whenever he would drop peter off on his dates to try to embarrass him.

-peter started dressing more like a librarian whenever steph complimented his sweater(he proceeded to buy at least 5 identical sweaters with only the color different)

-Steph has dyslexia and she struggles in English and biology the most.

-She only realized that she might've had it whenever peter mentioned it and she went to go get tested(rich kid money)

-she was happy to learn that she wasn't stupid and couldn't read

-peter and steph now meet up after school almost everyday just to work on hw

-steph now goes to school almost everyday because of pete and doesn't skip anymore

-peter bought both of them promise rings after they reached the 1 year mark

-after they graduated they went to separate colleges but call each other constantly and do long distance (they are in love, if only i could have this)

-peter memorized steph's order at beanie's and would buy her order randomly as a gift

-peters love language is gift giving

-stephs love language is quality time and physical touch

ok now time for max and grace

-max used to be great at school but then his dad turned into an alcoholic

-he and richie used to be best friends befire he started self-isolating

-he has some guilt for ditching and bullying richie but he drowns it out with the power he feels from bullying

-he is surprisingly progressive and supports queer people

-he gets mad whenever people are homophobic and transphobic (he is a shitty person but not that shitty)

-he enjoys horror movies and thats why he enjoyed the nerds prank so much

-he secretly collects trinkets of his favorite slasher/horror characters

-grace felt a twinge of guilt after max died but it was short lived

-during the summoning grace felt a weird pulling to the black book and snuck it away after the whole ritual

-when she opens the book she can hear the lords in black laughing in her head

-when she opened the book for the first time after max's death the lords in black showed her a small glimpse of max's torture

-her parents thought grace had a demon in her after she came back home and called the priest to exorcize her

-she stayed in her room for a week after her parents did that to her

-she grew to hate her parents after using the black book

-her whole religion was shattered in front of her eyes whenever the lords in black were summoned

ok i think thats it for now. also if you see spelling mistakes or random capitalization just ignore it

[babiebom]

yeah me too! my friends and I actually do have some plans of streaming together, so that should be fun... if we ever stop procrastinating 😆

a whole week?? wow that's some top notch commitment 👏

props to you guys lmaoo

I hope to see the fnaf movie soon, but the 5 of us can't settle on a date so it's tricky :/

hopefully soon we can actually watch it tho lol

unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a romance mod for Mr. qi yet 😕 😞

im half tempted to attempt making my own, but I dropped coding agess ago lmao.. don't know where I'd start 😅

altho I think if i were to make one, he'd not move in w the farmer. idk he just doesn't seem the type. he's got the vibes of rich hubby on vacation who sends you stuff.. that might just be me tho lol

speaking of, may I request nsfw mr. qi headcanons with an ftm! reader?

tysm :]

-🔮

A/N:omfg? Idk how I didn’t see this until now I’m no sorry! I hope you’ve gotten to see the movie by now especially with how many spoilers are on EVERY app. If you ever do make the mod let me know! I wanted to get back into coding but then remembered that I actually hated it so unfortunately I can’t. I do wanna try to make a game in itch.io(is that the website for the games?) that is the choose your own adventure fic that I’m writing but I don’t know how i would even do it. Also agree with the rich hubby thing. I don’t think he would ever actually settle down ANYWHERE. like he’d be home like 2 days out of the week at most.

Tw:Sexual content! Cursing

ALSO idk if this should go under warnings, but I would also like to say that I am not trans myself, so if I write something that’s inaccurate or offensive make sure to let me know, I’m trying my best to write from that pov I just wanted to….warn? Let you know? Like I do not mind writing this at all(no transphobes allowed) I just want to make sure that I’m writing/understanding well!!

Wc: 30 bullet points

Sdv Masterlist

Also fucking and making love are two DIFFERENT things

I 100 percent believe that gender identity doesn’t matter to Mr.Qi at ALL.

I also think he doesn’t care about bottom/top surgery at ALL

Like he is a fan of mystery, of the unknown that’s what he likes, and he likes people that also have those interests, or people that make him interested in a similar way.

(I think he would be pansexual? Demisexual?)

So in his mind he knows that you have nothing to worry about. He also knows that emotions don’t follow logic half of the time and that your nerves can’t be dispelled just by him saying that you have nothing to worry about.

So he shows you.

Depending on if you’re a romantic/sentimental person or not he does different things

Like would set up and entire display with roses and everything, music playing and snacks to make you feel loved and comfortable

but if you’re not the type of person to like that sort of thing he would probably do something more chaotic like a scavenger hunt for you throughout the day(which arguably could be seen as more romantic) that leads you on a wild goose chase and allows him to set something up at home(your home but like whatever)

Making love to him is very sweet. He tries to keep the teasing to a minimum

By minimum I mean he only teases in the beginning, and not how he usually would. Would probably edge you for a little just to make your first orgasm mind blowing then would get on with it.

He does slow his pace down for love making because it’s more…spiritual(?) like it’s an exchange of love and it’s not only for pleasure y’know. It’s literally to express how you feel for each other.

NOW FUCKING IS A WHOLE DIFFERENT THING

I do think he would be on the more dominant side, preferring to tease and take control, coaxing out things you didn’t know you had within you

Will let you take control though

He is a man of curiosity

Wonders how you will behave when given a dominant position

Doesn’t refuse anything you want to do, but is mischievous the entire time. Has a stupid smirk on his face that makes you think that you have absolutely no control.

Idk if it’s magic or what but always does SOMETHING to make everything more sensitive.

Is VERY into blindfolding

Wants genuine reactions without self consciousness getting in the way.

Good/smart/naughty boy are a part of his vernacular and he will use it only when you’re too fucked out to react to him saying it in any other way than incoherent whining.

Probably into shibari and likes to be tied up and tying you up.

Blindfolds + shibari is a normal night ngl.

The glasses stay on during sex idc

He makes sure by the end of it that both of you are sweaty and out of breath

Likes having sex in different locations with a tiny bit of risk. Like he doesn’t want the two of you to get caught

But he wonders what would happen if you did…

The sexual experience with him is always a good one somehow even when he wants to try out weird kinks.