#i just found this one

[eimearkuopio]

The stuff you're discussing is actually really well handled by x+y by Eugenia Cheng, a mathematician who specialises in category theory. She proposes (and argues very convincingly for) a decoupling of language between biological and social aspects of concepts which are traditionally defined as masculine or feminine, and proposes using the term "ingressive" for traditionally masculine social aspects, and "congressive" for traditionally feminine social aspects. I've found it an extremely helpful way of thinking about my own behaviour and society. It also helps to overcome a lot of the issues that the existing conceptual models fall prey to by their very language.

Here's the thing I don't think you've noticed; and from my perspective, if I can explain it properly, I think you'll agree with what I'm saying. (Big if! But there's a reason I win awards for my teaching.)

I agree with a lot of what you're saying. You agree with a lot of what I'm saying.

But I'm saying, "Any time we reduce this complex reality to a simplified model, even by the act of describing it in language, by necessity, that act will obscure some facet of that complex reality. We should consider which aspects we are obscuring in a given conversation, why we have made those choices, and what the implications are; but we must simplify somehow to make those approximations and have meaningful and productive discourse, and claiming otherwise is disingenuous and harmful."

And you are reading that as, "This specific approximation is fine actually!"

But you're the one who's dissecting the nature of the approximation in biological terms. I'm just saying that some approximation is necessary, and it's more important to define the approximation and the limitations of that approximation than to try to generalise unnecessarily and end up using four-dimensional tensors in a situation where you can just multiply by 10 and call it a day. You're striving for spurious precision, claiming that the "right" answer needs a certain number of decimal places of accuracy and then we can call it "correct"; and I'm saying that in practical, day-to-day terms, we're actually better off saying that pi is approximately 3 as long as we're not using that value to build any bridges.

[bearrverine]

me and gang at the haunted house

[msparrowscribbles]

Scar's bringing such an energy to this season, huh

(this is my first attempt posting something in this very sketchy style asdgjsafs we'll see how I feel about it - designs are inspired by aresonist's lovely designs)

[tearlessrain]

please help me- i used to be pretty smart but i’m having so much trouble grasping the concept of diegetic vs non-diegetic bdsm!

gfkjldghfd okay first of all I'm sorry for the confusion, if you're not finding anything on the phrase it's because I made it up and absolutely nobody but me ever uses it, but I haven't found a better way to express what I'm trying to say so I keep using it. but now you've given me an excuse to ramble on about some shit that is only relevant to me and my deeply inefficient way of talking and by god I'm going to take it.

SO. the way diegetic and non-diegetic are normally used is to talk about music and sound design in movies/tv shows. in case you aren't familiar with that concept, here's a rundown:

diegetic sound is sound that happens within the world of the movie/show and can be acknowledged by the characters, like a song playing on the stereo during a driving scene, or sung on stage in Phantom of the Opera. it's also most other sounds that happen in a movie, like the sounds of traffic in a city scene, or a thunderclap, or a marching band passing by. or one of the three stock horse sounds they use in every movie with a horse in it even though horses don't really vocalize much in real life, but that's beside the point, the horse is supposed to be actually making that noise within the movie's world and the characters can hear it whinnying.

non-diegetic sound is any sound that doesn't exist in the world of the movie/show and can't be perceived by the characters. this includes things like laugh tracks and most soundtrack music. when Duel of Fates plays in Star Wars during the lightsaber fight for dramatic effect, that's non-diegetic. it exists to the audience, but the characters don't know their fight is being backed by sick ass music and, sadly, can't hear it.

the lines can get blurry between the two, you've probably seen the film trope where the clearly non-diegetic music in the title sequence fades out to the same music, now diegetic and playing from the character's car stereo. and then there are things like Phantom of the Opera as mentioned above, where the soundtrack is also part of the plot, but Phantom of the Opera does also have segments of non-diegetic music: the Phantom probably does not have an entire orchestra and some guy with an electric guitar hiding down in his sewer just waiting for someone to break into song, but both of those show up in the songs they sing down there.

now, on to how I apply this to bdsm in fiction.

if I'm referring to diegetic bdsm what I mean is that the bdsm is acknowledged for what it is in-world. the characters themselves are roleplaying whatever scenarios their scenes involve and are operating with knowledge of real life rules/safety practices. if there's cnc depicted, it will be apparent at some point, usually right away, that both characters actually are fully consenting and it's all just a planned scene, and you'll often see on-screen negotiation and aftercare, and elements of the story may involve the kink community wherever the characters are. Love and Leashes is a great example of this, 50 Shades and Bonding are terrible examples of this, but they all feature characters that know they're doing bdsm and are intentional about it.

if I'm talking about non-diegetic bdsm, I'm referring to a story that portrays certain kinks without the direct acknowledgement that the characters are doing bdsm. this would be something like Captive Prince, or Phantom of the Opera again, or the vast majority of bodice ripper type stories where an innocent woman is kidnapped by a pirate king or something and totally doesn't want to be ravished but then it turns out he's so cool and sexy and good at ravishing that she decides she's into it and becomes his pirate consort or whatever it is that happens at the end of those books. the characters don't know they're playing out a cnc or D/s fantasy, and in-universe it's often straight up noncon or dubcon rather than cnc at all. the thing about entirely non-diegetic bdsm is that it's almost always Problematic™ in some way if you're not willing to meet the story where it's at, but as long as you're not judging it by the standards of diegetic bdsm, it's just providing the reader the same thing that a partner in a scene would: the illusion of whatever risk or taboo floats your boat, sometimes to extremes that can't be replicated in real life due to safety, practicality, physics, the law, vampires not being real, etc. it's consensual by default because it's already pretend; the characters are vehicles for the story and not actually people who can be hurt, and the reader chose to pick up the book and is aware that nothing in it is real, so it's all good.

this difference is where people tend to get hung up in the discourse, from what I've observed. which is why I started using this phrasing, because I think it's very crucial to be able to differentiate which one you're talking about if you try to have a conversation with someone about the portrayal of bdsm in media. it would also, frankly, be useful for tagging, because sometimes when you're in the mood for non-diegetic bodice ripper shit you'd call the police over in real life, it can get really annoying to read paragraphs of negotiation and check-ins that break the illusion of the scene and so on, and the opposite can be jarring too.

it's very possible to blur these together the same way Phantom of the Opera blurs its diegetic and non-diegetic music as well. this leaves you even more open to being misunderstood by people reading in bad faith, but it can also be really fun to play with. @not-poignant writes fantastic fanfic, novels, and original serials on ao3 that pull this off really well, if you're okay with some dark shit in your fiction I would highly recommend their work. some of it does get really fucking dark in places though, just like. be advised. read the tags and all that.

but yeah, spontaneous writer plug aside, that's what I mean.

[chloesimaginationthings]

What if Henry found Springtrap first in FNAF..

[lemongogo]

life of regret

[crumb-crumblet-s-crumbington]

"Why did I do that?"

close up

[dredgesnails]

so... wild life, huh?

[nightmarereverie]

Circa 1900, Bat in Flight with the Man in the Moon brooch. Made by Unger Brothers, USA. ❤︎₊ ⊹

[hinamie]

ṇ̵̛̱͌̅̃͛̔o̴̮̓̀͂́̃_̴̛̲́s̷͈̋̈́̄̋͠ị̶͔̗̐͐̐̒̕g̵̛̱̘̣̑͂ņ̴̰͔̘͇̏̒̓̇͠͝a̸̜̥̩̭͋̌ḷ̶͔̖͗͋͛͛̃͆

[hoshikorii]

Family Group hugs

Be a good proton, but keep your expectation down, Caine.

"..It brings my digital heart GREAT joy to see you're all satisfied and happy!"

"LET GO OF US YOU [@#$%&] PAIR OF DENTURES I SWEAR I-"

"ooh, a chimaera birdwing!"

[puppppppppy]

who is your favorite AA character? 👁️👁️

ziska… I hope capcom brings her back someday

[notbrucewayne48]

"aphobia doesn't exist"

bitch literally not that long ago an aroace youtuber animator was insulted by almost half of its community for being it

[0vergrowngraveyard]

mr and mrs prower seeing the child they abandoned suddenly on the news being praised because he singlehandedly stopped a missile from blowing up a whole city

[theerurishipper]

-

-

-

-

I tried something new

Part 1 -> Part 2

Masterpost

[tamberrio]

“They say the murderer trapped the souls of his victims in the photos he took. What do you think, Atsushi-kun? Seems like a fun way to die~”

“… Sure. But the murderer stopped and he was never found, right?”

“Hah! It won’t be that way for long. His identity is as good as found now that I’m here!”