#i wouldnt want to either but there is an inherent sense of 'i want to fit in and have fun here too'

[toxifoxx]

scratches back of head

[fipindustries]

in art there is an inherent tension between nature and nurture. is the conflict between those simple executions that are known to work, that stimulate base parts of our sensorioum and brain and thus of massive appeal, easy to grasp and enjoy; against things that are dense in technique, and concept, for which one has to develop a language, a technical understanding and a taste, hermetic and not easy to grasp at once.

i think most of the public expects most art to fall on the first cathegory to some degree or another. a painting should look "pretty", whatever pretty means, a song should be "catchy", food should be "tasty", a joke should be "funny", a movie should be "entertaining". either way, the point is that art should "feel good" or rather it should "click" in a quick sensory way. that when you watch a movie its quality should be as immediatly appreciable as when you eat a good meal. and when they hear experts try to explain more advanced pieces they are expecting to hear an explination that makes it so that those advnaced pieces stimulate those simple buttons that more simple stuff so easily satisfies. but of course they never get that, instead they get a bunch of theory that does nothing to make the art any closer in a purely sensorial way.

the idea that in order to appreciate something one has to first develop an understanding or appreciation of it feels counter intuitive, it feels like enjoying art with extra steps, you have to force yourself to extract joy out of something (which is not a pleasant experience, there is always that frustration of the excercise not feeling genuine, not feeling true and emotionally potent, it feels like an affectation) in order to extract the joy and entertainment that one could get much easier from something more direct and simple.

for some people having fun listenting to a catchy jingle made with the classic 4 chords or eating a nice chocolate cake feels more "natural" than listening to prog rock or reading infinite jest. its almost teleological. our tongues were Made to enjoy sugar, that is how things are meant to be because that is how nature designed us. in a sense the studying of art techniques is basically the analisis and compilation of the formulas that work, of the buttons that one has to press to stimulate the human animal in the correct way. we know how the pentatonic scale works, on almost a biological level, we have color theory, we have composition, we understand the three act structure.

so one might ask, why even bother with the weirder stuff, the stuff that is hard to appreciate? the stuff that we kind of have to shape ourselves into enjoying? its artificial, its purely a social construct. is not real, humans were not made for this.

well, the truth is, humans are much more versatile than that, and whilst we are all born with some basic buttons that anyone can push to satisfy, it is also in our nature the capacity to develop more buttons, more complex and intricate. buttons that start to crave for layers, for nuance, for the weird and ecclectic and unique. people DO develop a taste for special, particular old wines that were cultivated in such and such a way, people DO get a lot of meaning from the works of john cage, people DO have fun reading ulysses and these things are not necesarily an affectation. and this is a process that will happen on its own the more we are exposed to more and more art.

i do want to clarify, i dont believe in teleological arguments or appeals to nature. even if that last paragraph wasnt the case, that wouldnt change anything for me, but still, it is the case and i think its worth being said.

now, a lot of people see the developing of their taste as a challenge or an obligation, which can make it an imposition and rob the enjoyment out of it. god knows i forced myself to watch some movies simply because i thought they were the kinds of movies i was supposed to like if i wanted to consider myself a cinephile. i dont think this is a good approach, experiment and push yourself out of your comfort zone, yes, that is how you discover new things. but dont force yourself to stay there if its just not doing it for you. i came to terms with the fact i will probably never understand pollock no matter how many of his paintings i see or how much i study on the subject. but i have come to discover i do like donna tart's the goldfinch quite a lot.

and this doesnt go just for the higher forms of art, try those "trashy" things that come from spaces that are not your scene at all. i was convinced i was never going to be able to enjoy cumbia or trap or bachata and yet i kept my ears open and ended up finding songs in all of those genres that i cant stop listenting to. there are so many buttons inside of you and you dont know what is going to press of of them by surprise one of these days.

[lycanr0t]

the thing abt giving dunmeshi characters pokemon is that i can't just slap aesthetically pleasing pokemon onto them, AND even if i did base it off lore i have to consider what the world is like as well.

is it dumgeon meshi characters just slapped into the pokemon universe, completely different stories/jobs/etc? because that inherently changes what themes would make sense.

is it dungeon meshi universe just with pokemon? in which case i have to consider dunmeshis world rules.

i personally prefer a combination, but lean more towards dunmeshi universe rules being the core. because otherwise the characters would be very different since they grew up in a different world and ones life experiences shape who they are.

the challenge is that canonically it's not ideal to have many party members in a dungeon at once, and aside from that i honest to god cannot see most characters having a pokemon anyways due to it not making sense story wise or character wise.

like laios having a honedge that evolves throughout makes sense, kensuke is already a living being thats his sword, right?

but senshi doesn't really seem the type to actually have a consistent pokemon. He would KNOW many, as i would imagine pokemon would more replace the monsters in the dunmeshi universe. seshi KNOWS various pokemon, maybe is friendly with them too, but wouldn't OWN them. theyre not HIS. the golems were not HIS. the kelpie anne was not HIS. he was a part of their lives but theyre not his pets. if one followed him i dont think he would protest but he wouldnt stop it from leaving if it wanted to either.

do you see though?? how when you actually consider world rules and the characters beyond "what pokemon can i slap onto them" it becomes soo much more complicated, BUT is an absolutely fascinating way to break down characters and the world's lore and analyze them and what would contradict/break the rules

[drdemonprince]

trans men do face similar rates of violence to trans women and therefore should not be exclulded from places like abuse shelters and do need more protections than cis men do imo.

I think policy should be applied with this in mind as well when doing things about gendered spaces.

I think a lot of queer or trans women have reservations about this due to terf rhetoric telling them that the only real axis of oppression is whether you were born a female or not. but i do not think the solution to this is holding trans men and cis men in a 1:1 (i also think the same thing w trans women and transmisogyny. trans ppl can havr diff experiences to their cis counterparts and thats ok yk?)

Cis men are statistically more vulnerable to violent crime at the hands of strangers than cis women are by a wide, wide margin, and men's shelters are already pretty dangerous places -- often due to numerous institutional failures and outright abuse from staff. I say this not as undermining whataboutism, but to point out that while I understand why trans men might feel unsafe in men's shelters, our fears and sense of safety are not apolitical and are often skewed by which groups we are taught are dangerous and which groups we're taught are weak.

now! all that said! I think trans people absolutely are vulnerable within gendered shelters and I wouldnt call any trans man irrational for not wanting to be in one, just as I wouldnt question a trans woman who didn't feel safe in a women's shelter. they literally cant win! they will be mistreated in either space.

But the thing is, I can't claim these spaces are safe or respectful to anyone! They are oppressive institutions! They often control clients' movement, remove their possessions, force them into religious programming, force their beliefs on clients and impose restrictions on their lives, what they put in their body, and how they make their money, threaten them with incarceration, and subject them to assault and abuse.

Gender segregation is no assurance of safety, and doing gender segregation right is impossible because the binary is inherently oppressive.

when nearly every shelter abuses and denies agency to all its clients, figuring out the exact right gender breakdown for ensuring safety feels like a distraction from the root issue. the whole system needs to be redone to be client directed.

it's a bit like trying to decide which gendered prison a trans person ought to be sent to. we shouldnt be treating anyone like an inmate. but virtually all shelters do.

[wondero28]

Hey wonder, I hope you’re doing well :> Idk if you still continue the 4town Fboy series but my friends and I are still wild over it. It’s truly An amazing series!!

I was wondering what’s something the person the boys are interested in could do to make them fold or show genuine interest in them?

I’ve risen from the dead I suppose!

Im still around. Still invested in 4town. Still think about them daily lol

But truthfully i’ve moved on from the fboy 4town thing, it was originally just a bad joke that i kept writing for cause it kept getting traction & i liked the attention. i was having fun with it at the time, but now its just kinda goofy & feels a little awkward. I made them too sympathetic originally lol, but this is the first writing request ive had in such a long time. I really don’t mind doing it.

Just know this is the last time ill probably ever write for fboy town, it’ll be kept short too^^ Maybe ill go back & revisit those designs i made for them & repurpose it, maybe not!

Oh also, the genuine answer for this is that most of them WOULDNT get genuinely invested. Because they’re all emotionally fucked over guys who need therapy lol. But these headcanons humor the idea that they’d genuinely change

+

You’re free to write your own fboy shenanigans based off what I originally did too. I dont mind. You don’t need to credit either, i think id just like to leave these guys behind after this /lh

Either way, its nice to see someone here again 💜

——

What the fboys are attracted to + what might make them fall

—

Robaire

- genuinely? he’s attracted to independence

- Like its a little silly & a little cliche but Robaire is kind of only genuinely invested in people who give 0 shits about him. He’s not used to someone not caring about his status, money, or power. But when a person is independent & confident in themself, when they mind their own business and simply dont fucking perceive him as some sort of idol- he thinks its hot

- It drives him crazy though. He likes the worship and praise. Even if his friends are faux and he knows it, he likes feeling wanted and desired. And when someone doesn’t inherently just want him, he wants them even more

- So even if you DO want him, the best way to genuinely win him over is to treat him like a normal person. He doesn’t realize he wants to be treated like a peer or be seen as just a person & not an asset- but he does. He’ll be unbearable & act cocky while he interacts with you, but the more you treat him like just a normal person? The more of a person he actually starts to become 💀

- Any specific actions that would affect him are probably just like… engaging with him on your own terms or showing interest in what he ACTUALLY likes to do.

- A lot of people dont actually know what Robaires interests are so he’s really unengaged socially in that regard. He’s a closet geek though, get him talking about his interests or show investment in his interests like a genuine friend & youll start to win him over in a genuine way

————

Jesse

- Jesse doesn’t show much tenderness, but he’s very attracted to it

- He’s got a habit of breaking hearts & having multiple people wrapped around his finger at once. Because Jesse’s kind of genuinely incapable of being tender in a way thats meaningful with someone (aside from his kids & the guys), he’s really lacking in any true emotional intimacy

- He’s very VERY alone in that sense.

- His heart’s been broken in a very honest and true way so he’s kind of given up on finding that intimacy too. Its sad & sucks lol. But because of that struggle he has a much more genuine attraction to tenderness

- To win him over with tenderness, showing politeness or interest without expecting romance or sex wins him over, denying either from him makes him go wild. Jesse’s generally wanted because he’s attractive & suave, but if someone sees him as a person outside of that then he’s really into it. Honest to the gods he just wants a friend. He’ll never admit that though

- But for another genuine romance? He needs you to be a friend. A tender & patient one.

- Specific actions to win him over are small and easy, show interest in his day. Show interest in what his classes have been like or offer him a space to speak. He’ll try so hard to flip it around into a flirting game but eventually he’ll break & just start to like,, interact with you in more meaningful ways

————

Tae Young

- Tae Young both likes & needs someone with a dominant personality & passion for themself/their interests

- Short and simply put: Tae Young gets bored of people easy 💀. He needs someone who 1. Can keep him on his toes and 2. Challenge his personal sense of authority. A dominant & passionate person is PERFECT for that. Having someone who can spontaneously do something on their own & then proudly show it off is just what Tae needs in his life

- He thinks spontaneity is attractive and he loves a dominant personality to try and stand up against. A friendly sense of competition with someone, someone he can perceive as a peer or “on his level” is someone he’s wildly attracted to. And trust me, he WILL try to challenge your dominance and authority if you’re that kind of person. So dont step down, snap back at him! He loves it, it keeps him excited

- The harsh truth is that Tae simply isn’t genuinely engaged with most interactions he has because he has such a hard time connecting with people in a meaningful way. He likes being popular cause it keeps things constantly moving in his life & gives him opportunities to find brief engagement

- So just,, he needs someone who can do that. He’ll become genuinely attached to them, and then eventually find everything they do interesting

- Specific actions can be simply engaging with Tae & telling HIM about YOUR activities. If you get excited and energetic enough about it, he’ll match that energy & find interest in it. He’ll likely tell you about his own misadventures and if you can engage with him on that then you’ll have him hooked on you

————

Aaron T

- Aaron T needs someone to calm him the fuck down. He doesnt want it per say, but he NEEDS it

- Aaron T is, for lack of better words, a bit too much. He’s got all the friends, all the ego, and all the charisma to combine and make the dumbest but most charming motherfucker you’ll ever meet. He’s not stupid, just dumb. And he does dumb shit for the sake of fun & enjoyment. He needs someone who can keep up with him & either catch him when he falls or stop him from doing the dumb thing to begin with

- Being that kind of person isn’t easy, keeping up with T & being close enough to him to read him is hard. But when you’re close enough to do that? Well gosh, you probably already have him hooked

- T wont ever admit it, but he so so badly wants someone to care about him enough to tell him no. Its weird, because he hates it and Will usually just do what he wants, but theres a certain comfort he finds in knowing someone wants him safe and sound

- And the longer someone can keep up with him the more T will start to wind down & relax. He’s still dumb & stubborn as all hell, but he’ll listen to whoever cares enough to try and watch out for him where most others dont.

- Specific actions that may really win him over are being there to patch him up after a stupid stunt or literally blocking his way to keep him from going somewhere. He’ll be pissy in the moment, but hours later he’ll be so much more tender in private if given the opportunity

————

Aaron Z

- honest to god this man is easy & the least problematic. But Z both wants & needs someone who’s patient & understanding

- He’s simply not someone who believes in settling down anymore + he’s in a part of his life where a lot is changing and evolving. He wants someone to rely on, but he NEEDS room to grow and have spontaneity. He cant do commitment right now and when things start to feel too tense he flees from the relationship (romantic or not, he’s even flighty with his friends sometimes)

- So Z really flourishes with someone who can be there for him without “tying him down”. He wants freedom and he’s very attracted to people who offer the attention he wants from relationships while also being patient enough to let him explore. He needs someone who wont nag him about expressing his genuine feelings because honestly they aren’t always pretty but he’s not going to move forward without getting to express them.

- So to really win him over, someone needs to be able to listen to him even when he’s not verbally speaking. He needs his freedom but he needs a stable person to return to at the end of the day (starting as friends or not, its not easy to fill this role)

- Specific actions to win him over arent easy. But quality time based on things HE may want to do (but be too shy to always directly request) is good. Or just offering him quality time to unwind & relax with may help

- He starts to open up more and more as time goes on. He’ll become more emotionally available the safer he feels with someone who offers him room to grow without judgement

[subconsciousmysteries]

"sx isn't about connecting to other people, anything involving an interpersonal connection is soc"

So I've ranted endlessly about how people butchered the meaning of soc-blindness, but now let's get into what the typology world has done to sx. I can assure you that it's 10x worse than what they did to soc "I'm so much meaner and edgier than thou" blindness.

I have seen much shite online trying to overcomplicate what sx means. They say "it's not about sex", even though it is literally called, The Sexual Instinct. But when I first heard that sx isn't really about sex I thought, okay, that's fine. It can be about an intense passion for another person that isn't physically sexual, but can be seen as sexual on the mental level. I've had really intense friendships that were by no means physically sexual, but they felt mentally sexual for sure with how intimate we were, how many secrets we shared with each other. I couldn't quite describe them as social relationships since I did not choose these people based on some social agenda, or based on some moral characteristics that I respected and admired about them. I chose them based purely on the chemistry we had, and I would never compromise these relationships unless I felt a loss of chemistry.

But apparently no, that isn't right according to the sxflakes. Sx doesn't describe sex... and it doesn't describe intense 1-1 relationships either! No, no, that's all soc. Anything which relates to another person, ever, is soc. Even having sex with another person is social, because you're dealing with another person!

I was enlightened that sx is this totally abstract, you-wouldnt-understand-it-unless-youre-a-special-snowflake-like me thing, about ~chemistry~ and ~intense vibes~. and it isn't related to connecting with other people at all.

???

How can you have chemistry, one must ask, if there is no other person to have that chemistry with? Well. the "sx is separate from interpersonal connection" crowd continued to enlighten me. Some of them explained to me that sx-doms just want to seduce because they like to seduce, it's about seduction moreso than actually connecting with people... seems like they didn't really think through what the motivation behind seduction is for normal people who aren't far-gone narcissists (hint: the motivation is establishing a sexual connection, which is inherently an emotional connection unless you're broken or you're consciously walling yourself off, as I will touch on later). Others gave me a totally mechanical and disgustingly male-centric explanation of sx, how it's about "spreading your seed" through... making art that lasts for generations! They didn't even say that spreading your seed through literally being a fuckboy is sx, lol. because I guess that's what normies do and we all know that normies are sx-blinds.

It sounds to me like these "sx isnt about connecting" people are pretentious dickweeds at best... and they are describing sheer narcissism with a heavy dose of sexual degeneracy at worst. "Sx is about being a special arteest" or "Sx is separate from interpersonal connection because I'm a broken sociopath who can't feel bonded to all the people I lure in close to me" is all that I hear when people try to explain to me why sx is not about sex or intense emotional connection.

[Also worth noting that a lot of people who write ennea theory are practically proven sociopaths, if you listen to accounts from people who left their cults. Real shit always explains itself.]

Sx is fundamentally about the longing for an intense connection. describing sx as detached from interpersonal connection and being about some abstract sense of selfishness, makes utterly no sense. The reason why sx acts selfish towards most people, is because they are bored out of their brains and chronically disappointed if their interactions aren't a strong 1-1 connection with a person that they feel viscerally excited to pour all of their energy into. Average interactions feel empty, small talk is draining to sx moreso than other IVs. Sx is so fixated on finding #deep relationships that excite them, that they feel completely numb to the simpler, less exciting relationships, to the point of being unable to function in anything less than an intense 1-1. But people are making it sound like sx is this self-absorbed character even in the face of a person who excites them and makes them feel that sense of connection that they were longing for. Which simply makes no fucking sense, and just sounds like a YOU problem with narcissism, borderline or sociopathy making you unable to connect with others regardless of what your IV is.

Also just like how the "soc blinds are so edgy and mean" crowd show their lack of understanding of soc and sp when they define sp by its supposed edginess and soc by its supposed lack thereof, the "sx blinds are so detached from everyone ever at all times" crowd really show their lack of understanding of sx when they say this shite. which makes me question if most of them even have sx. I think some of them are clueless sx-blinds who see intensity as an abstract thing not directed at a specific person, because this is how they experience things due to their sx-blindness. people characterize sx-blinds as boring milquetoast normies, which causes a lot of sx-blinds to mistype as sx, and then butcher the meaning of sx to justify the mistyping. And some of these people who think sx isnt about connection do have sx... they're just also Cluster Bs who are mistaking their dysfunction for sx.

As soon as an sx-user forms a functional relationship with someone where they feel connected and happy, the "sx has nothing to do with other people" crowd declares that this person must be using soc to connect instead of sx. There you see the fallacy that sex is not the most powerful interpersonal connection tool... Rather it is some abstract Other thing that only the special sxflakes can understand. There's also this idea with sx that you must be in a constant state of suffering and longing in order to have the instinct; happiness and contentment is for lame sx-blind norrrrrmieeeees. You must never be satisfied as an sx-haver. Sx can never be satiated by their logic. Sx is just a never-ending void of a need to seduce people who you don't even feel connected with, kinda like borderline / narcissistic supply. "Sx has nothing to do with bonding," say these personality disordered sxflakes who want to pretend that their personality disordered inability to form bonds with other people is just normal sx.

The detaching of sx from interpersonal connection parallels greatly to how society was encouraged to view sex as separate from emotion in recent decades. It has reached the point where you get called an ignorant bigot if you suggest that sex can be an emotional act that is inherently related to interpersonal connection. It is certainly true that people can detach sex from emotion, as someone who's done it myself I can tell you that detaching sex from emotion is the unnatural thing; attaching sex to emotion happens naturally, for EVERYONE. yes, everyone, not just myself but also the dudes, and also the people who are in denial of it. Everyone has to put effort into remaining emotionally detached when they have sex. Sex intensifying emotional connection is the natural process for both parties. It is what sex was designed for, to emotionally bind two people and open the door for them to spiritually connect on the most intense possible level.

Sx can be cruel in how it is apathetic towards contracts, commitments and social norms. Sx'ers won't bother paying you any attention if they have lost passionate interest. Sx'ers give up on promises and obligations because they lost interest, much more easily and often than sx-blinds do. Sx-havers will be perceived by many people as very selfish. But sx is by no means as cold and detached from the interpersonal as people are describing it to be. Sx is not only an other-focused instinct, it is the neediest instinct. Its whole purpose is to seek bonds just like the social instinct does... in a far less level-headed, far more emotionally driven way.

But hey, don't listen to me. I guess the only reason I don't understand all these super special super abstract sxflakes who claim that sex has nothing to do with other people, is because I must be a sx-blind. Couldn't be that I'm just not fucking broken enough to be deluded that sex is completely separate from connection.

[booblywooblies]

im gonna post this here bc i dont want anyone to get the wrong idea on main

ive been thinking for a long time about why detransitioners are usually afab, and i think im developing a couple theories. the first one is i think its more difficult to be classified as a man, genuinely, than a woman. i know that seems immediately incorrect bc a big aspect of transmisogyny is denying transfems their womanhood but i think even if transphobes are calling transfems men they dont really mean it. theres been some talk about which trans people have "male privilege" and some people argue transfems do and the most common response to that is that even if transfems are not out they are not regarded as true men, theres something about them that people can pick up on as inherently queer that others them from manhood (sometimes, all of this is sometimes nothing is universal)

i watched a video a while ago about the "incel to trans pipeline" which was kind of about the type of incel that isnt so much concerned with the lack of sex so much as being a failure as a man and how theres a group on like 4chan or something that seek transition not because theyre trans but to escape the pressures of masculinity and i thought that was really interesting

i think that in some ways, despite all the bullshit women go through with being belittled and objectified and disrespected, there is maybe some comfort in being the "weaker" gender, and the more "desireable" gender.

something ive been dealing with that, i mean it hasnt really been a struggle bc i enjoy men even when they are fat and greasy and hairy so im down with being that. theres something thats very weird about losing like, a certain pool of attention i guess. ive been hit with the realization that i will never be attractive to straight men again, and like thats a good thing because i wouldnt want them to see me as a woman im also kinda sad about it? like it feels like im losing a kind of power, even if its not a real power that has any actual use to me

and i probably dont even have to mention how intimidating it is to present myself to the world as a real man, especially when im 5 foot nothing and have H cups. like one thing when it comes to trans men that EVERYONE says about them is they are either basically only men in name, hanging on to their girly habits and interests in a way thats cringy and annoying, or they, in an effort to distance themselves from the first one just adopt toxic masculinity and beef up their own image of themselves by being more misogynistic

and obviously the first end is more on the people putting them down than the guys who are like that themselves, but thats what im really afraid of, ive already experienced being put down for my interests as a girl, the idea of being denied my real gender for any of that stuff is terrifying. and like, its kind of inherently misogynist to want to escape fully from femininity isnt it? and i do value anti-misogyny more than i do masculinity, thats definitely true in my heart. but it sort of feels at odds with each other, its hard to want to be a man, to seek approval as a man, to care about women being taken as seriously as you want to be taken, and to not put anyone down in your path to get there.

like if i wasnt so committed to it, if i believed this was ACTUALLY more in conflict than i really do, i could see myself as having a responsibility to not transition. im sure a lot of people have a different reason for doing that but i think it makes sense that so many afabs detransition because masculinity can break people.

and like BIG BIG BIG disclaimer, im not thinking about detransitioning, i dont think masculinity is inherently toxic, im gay and i have a cis husband, i think men are cool, i think women are cool and i like them a lot i respect them. im just inspecting this because i was not sure why it happens and i figured itd be in my best interest to figure it out, i think i have, i think its difficult and complicated but doesnt apply to me.

im transitioning bc it feels good and i have a man fetish 👍 and no one can stop me motherfucker

[rigatoniiiiiiii]

What do you think gay men are attracted to in men that they can’t be attracted to in women?

It can’t be anything about femininity or masculinity obviously. That’s both sexist, and cultural so can’t be what drives men-only attraction.

It can’t be anything about stated identity because someone could lie just as easily as they could tell the truth in such a statement, and it makes no sense because homosexuality and heterosexuality exists in other species with no stated identities. It’s not like other animals without gender are all pan.

Saying idk it’s the vibes or some indescribable trait men have that women can’t but “I can’t explain” is a nonanswer.

Soooooooo what is it? Or do you think any sexuality but bi/pan is just cultural performance or an identity rather than an inborn orientation?

- [ ]

I dunno, i think there’s *something*, but it’s kind of intangible. It’s inherently hard to grasp i think.

Its definetly something to wonder about, but at the end of the day i think if you spend your time trying to find a concrete answer, you will miss out on the important thing: that people will love (or not, if they dont want to) who they love no matter what.

I mean if you’re really looking for an exact answer, i dont think there is one? It would be impossible to find an “answer” that doesnt exclude someone in some way. I mean for me, a gay man and a lesbian at the same time, my attraction is just kinda… blurred. Theres no line or divider between them, it blends into eachother. I think most people, if they tried to find an answer to your question, would respond with a “rule” that wouldnt apply to me.

So I don’t know! I don’t really want to know, either. Humans are messy and fluid and changing all the time. Like you said, theres a bunch of social and cultural and what-have-you influences. Way too many to factor in. It’s futile to try and find a definitive answer, so why don’t we just relax and enjoy the people we love? I think that’s enough.

[ghoulodont]

an anecdote to expand on my point that "lack of insight" is considered an inherent aspect of schizophrenia:

i had my first psychotic episode when i was in grad school. i got sent to a university medical system clinic for young adults with "severe mental illness" which due to the demographic intersection of severe + young adult really boils down to mostly people having a first episode of psychosis. it wasnt officially a schizophrenia program but i think it kind of was by overwhelming majority.

because it was affiliated with a med school they often were recruiting patients for studies. there were almost always fliers in the waiting room about how they wanted to scan peoples brains or retinas or whatnot. only once over the maybe 9 months or so i went there i saw actual researchers in the waiting room trying to recruit for their study.

ive talked about this before but during & after my first episode i was not diagnosed with schizophrenia. in retrospect im not sure how much sense it made but the doctor at this program decided i had a personality disorder. so when the researcher in the waiting room asked me if i wanted to help with the study i told her no, i dont have schizophrenia.

i dont remember what the study was exactly but the flyer she had at her little table very clearly said they wanted to research schizophrenia and based on the diagnostic information i had at the time that was definitely not me. but she just absolutely would not take no for an answer. she was like, well you dont have to have a diagnosis yet, it doesnt have to be exactly schizophrenia. i told her i was really sure i wouldnt qualify based on what my psychiatrist told me. she said i should sign up anyway and they can double check.

eventually i just left but that interaction was so eye-opening. i felt like it was a little bit of a rosenhan experiment moment. just by being a patient in that waiting room my descriptions of my own experience were rendered either invalid or highly suspect. i swear she was pushier than any random street canvasser ive ever encountered. it was surreal.

it sort of made me think, how often are they in this situation? if someone denies having schizophrenia, how often do they do whatever background check, phone interview, corroboration, etc that she was planning to do and actually discover that person does have schizophrenia? or how often do they imagine that will happen? they clearly consider it worthwhile to do take the time and effort to do that further work. what does that say about their view of the people at that clinic?

[a-lukewarm-take]

buddy, i understand why youre so confused. cause i am too.

i understand the whole things yeah, the 'harassing people is bad', 'mind your business', etc etc. but other than that im lost on whatever the hell this 'pro' and 'anti' stuff is. ive just been not interacting with that, i think those pro anti people call it being 'neutral' im pretty sure. anyway i think the whole concept is pretty dumb, but its the internet. i wouldnt be surprised if someone doxed someone else over ice cream flavors

what ive for the whole thing is this: pro in proship stands for 'pro' as in 'for' for shipping/ship and let ship, anti is the opposite of that. antis believe that fiction can influence people, pros dont. pros believe what you like in fiction does not dictate your morals, antis dont. etc etc

my tip is this: keep far far away and ignore everything about those two things. if you dont wanna do that, well, try not to get too lost in the sauce while listening to both sides and keep your mind open

sorry if you already knew half of this and this is just kinda null, have a nice day

I'm not big on lables. I think theres a pretty reasonable middle ground to be had but I doubt either side is going to actually listen for long enough to figure this out. It would be nice if they did but, this is the internet.

"Pedophilia is bad" 

can coexist with

 "Fictional characters aren't real and doing reprehensible things to them has no real life victims"

 aswell as

"Fiction and the way objectionable content in fiction is framed has historically been used as propaganda to enable or encourage harmful behavior irl." 

They're not contradictory unless deliberately misinterpreted and exaggerated via a bad faith rube-goldberg of causality.

Books like Lolita play with framing in a way that a lot of mainstream readers miss the point of, especially readers that expect Lolita to spoon feed them the morals as many other books would have. Whether or not a reader is aroused or horrified by Lolita has nothing to do with their own morals and everything to do with whether or not they picked up on the fact that the narrator is an unreliable monster justifying and lying to himself when it comes to the girl in the novel. 

Art is complicated and some audiences, no matter how hard the author tries, are going to interpret that art in a way the author did not intend or even pervert the meaning to support whatever worldview they had before encountering the work.

Sometimes stories show you an oversexualized and glorified depiction of a repugnant act, explicitly because they trust that this framing would make the audience uncomfortable. The titillation is intended only as a gateway to vomiting or a profound sense of horror as it highlights that not all bad things are prevented and that this world will not punish the unjust inherently. It's asking you to wallow in the tragedy. 

There are surely stories that have no such deeper meaning and are quite simply porn. The line is thin and blurry. When you censor one you run the risk of censoring them all because someone unprepared to think critically about what the media they consume is trying to say, is going to miss the point.

Censorship is a difficult thing to manage and everyone has a right to distrust the powers enforcing it. 

You can believe strongly that there is media that does more harm than good whilst also understanding that very rarely is this the direct or intentional fault of the creator or consumers of the work on an individual level. But rather cogs in a larger system to which individuals can participate much in the same way we don't blame the butterfly for the hurricane. You can fight for censorship without shaming or harassing the people who don't want it.

I'm sure someone else could explain this better than I could and I'm open to being wrong about this. I certainly don't have all the answers, that's a part of being human.

-Luke

[onlinepiracy]

a major reason why therapy didnt work for me is that therapists straight up dont understand what im trying to communicate. i guess its because the way i feel emotion & perceive the world is inherently different from the average? i dont even have super crazy experiences or anything but people very rarely understand me when i talk about certain topics. not just in a “ugh you dont know what its like” way, like fully NO understanding of what i mean. how do i even fix that? it makes perfect sense to me but seems completely alien to them apparently no matter how clearly i rephrase it. its not an exaggeration to say it feels like if i were to say “i wnt to go grocery shopping later but im a bit exhausted so i might do it tomorrow instead” and theyd reply something like “so you think today is tuesday? why? ... no? ah, so you are worried it might rain? you may encounter children, you know.” like what!!!!!!!!!! not what i said man wtf!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! its so frustrating i talk & talk but to them it seems to be complete gibberish apparently. i can do casual conversation just fine (aside from being a bit awkward) so why does what i say in regarding to my emotions & perceptions abt the world make ZERO sense to basically anyone else except for a bunch of people online (to a partial degree, because while ive seen people discuss experiences similar to mine i havent actually had a successful conversation abt any of it, which is also fine cause random people online arent meant to act as my ttherapist & i wouldnt want that either)

[courfee]

hello!! i wanna know the answer to this one please: 🏔️ - If you created your own magical world, what would it be like? and also adding a little q by asking what you would name the world? <3

damn ok this is super difficult because in a way i HAVE created my own magical world already. or several, even, in stories or documented dreams. what they all have in common is that they always coexist with our world. either there is some kind of portal (through the top of a certain tree lies a a different world, that makes things look purely magical, but once you break the hallucination spell the world places on you you realise its just a huge shopping centre with layers upon layers of burocracy) or its just somewhat hidden but still present in every day life (people with magical abilities exist but over the years those abilities have grown less powerful in a sense. their point is to protect the inherent magic of the universe and those creatures and plants that cannot protect themselves and also do cool fighty fights)

so really, if i were to create my own world i think i just wouldnt. i do like our world too much for that, i would only want to add magic to make what we have better, so that we are able to once again properly enjoy the small things and the mundane things that in and of themselves, in their mundaness, are magical (moss, raindrops in sunlight, people dancing in the streets)

[snaxle]

Now that youve posted it, I got a question which is Why are anime for 5 years old not allowed? Or does it refer to western animation

i mean like i wouldnt want someone requesting opening themes from shows like Paw Patrol or something along those lines whether it's from western animation or not. inherently im not sitting here going thru each anime and/or cartoon now requested that i dont know to see what they're about, so if someone does request something meant for young young children, i probably won't even notice unless it's extremely obvious haha, if that makes sense. either way im not gonna be like upset if someone does request something from a paw patrol type show. generally the only reason i'd decline a request inherently is if i cant find it anywhere lol

[missbaphomet]

I think theres a big gap in understanding the definition of kink for a lot a people since I've seen wildly varying definitions thats led to a lot of confusion and of course, huge fights. To me, before I decided to look up the definition, kink was inherently sexual, and Im a kinky person, but also enjoy things that other people would consider a kink in a completely non-sexual way, and I would not define those things as a kink because they were non-sexual. I would say "Not in a kinky way" and would not include it in the context of kink. I defined kink as "sexual attraction to a particular act (or verb)" and fetish as "sexual attraction to a particular thing (or noun)" Now I've decided to research more into it because I was insanely confused by "kink isn't inherently sexual" and now I think I'm just extra confused? lol, theres so many different answers and definitions that I don't really know who to believe or what to think. I think this also has to do with things like cultural context, the way one was raised, the communities they are/were in. Like for example, I used to be pretty active in the agere community some time ago, but not so much anymore. I'm not into agere sexually in any way and I'll never be, it squicks me out to think about it in a sexual way, but I dont mind people who are into that way (or as I used to say, people into it as a kink), it's not really my business and I personally don't care, but as you may or may not know, a majority of the agere community did care. A LOT. there was a big separation between ddlg/abdl/ageplay (sexual) vs agere (non-sexual). I'm not sure how to best explain it but... if you were into something like that completely non-sexually, you wouldnt refer to it in the context of kink EVER. Like you wouldn't mention it if you were talking about or listing off your kinks, or you would say "in a non-kinky way", and there was a difference between "agere/petre kink" and "agere/petre" (or anything else you want to apply it to, like bondage and such) same with "ageplay/petplay" as "play" indicated it was sexual. I of course understand enjoying the non sexual aspects of kink and having non sexual feelings with kink but to me they were always tied to the sexual part (to me sexual doesn't necessarily mean having sex either, just sexual pleasure/gratification/feelings) and I just thought that was the norm? And for "kink" things I enjoyed non sexually (completely non sexually I mean, getting no sexual pleasure from it), I never defined those things as kink or being kinky, and I probably wont either (out of personal preference really). I think I can see like, enjoying aspects of kink separately from sexual stuff if you enjoy it sexually? I'm not entirely sure how to word it, like being into petplay but enjoying wearing a collar non sexually because it makes you feel safe (or you just like wearing it) even if sometimes you enjoy wearing it sexually?? If that makes sense?? Or that part being completely non sexual despite being attached to the kink part? Or how some people enjoy kink completely non sexually because coping/pain management/etc? But I would've defined those by their terms outside of the context of kink or without the word kink, or define it as what it is done for. I'm not sure, it's so different and there's so many definitions and stuff it's kind of making my head spin. I hope this is at least somewhat intelligible, I just wanted to explain what the definition was to me for the longest time and where I got that definition from, and maybe help understand where the confusion is coming from?

Oh boy I juuuuust woke up so do forgive me if I'm not perfectly coherent right now.

You're right. That is exactly the issue, and I think it's because people don't actually talk to kinksters to get their definition. I'm probably not putting this the best because I am mega sleepy-brained right now but the dictionary definition is devoid of context and nuance and lacks any sentiment of the deep emotions that lie at it's core. BDSM isn't beating someone up to cum, it's two consenting adults in a mutually agreed upon situation where one (the submissive) wants and receives the action of the scene and the other (the dominant) wants to provide and gives these sensations to their submissive. What these sensations are and if they're sexual or not can vary wildly from individual to individual. The dictionary doesn't care for that level of nuance. I have a redefinition somewhere on my blog that is more mindful but it would be an archeological dig to find it among 20,000+ posts.

I used to be on agere too and I was pretty controversial back then as well. I was most active between 2016-2017 but I didn't find myself fitting in with the community even then because I have always been an age player, not an age regressor, and age play isn't sexual for me. I say this to illustrate that there is a difference between an age player and an age regressor. I think the terms get erroneously used as synonyms but they're two different mental states. Same with pet play and pet regression. I can only explain my own mindset and experience but age regression is called this because it's a regression, the way you think actually literally changes. I was never able to get there, I always felt like I was just putting on a mask. Age play, however, doesn't imply true mental regression. I don't mentally age down, but I act in a way that would be considered younger. It's the difference between mind and body. Or at least that's how I see it. Other people may have different definitions but I can only speak for me rn.

You can be both a regressor and an age player, and that's perfectly fine, but that's why the distinction between regression and play matters so much as well as also being why the two are used as synonyms. Same for pet regression/play etc. Both are extremely therapeutic in many of the same ways but it's understandable why some people don't want sex during.

My primary point is that BDSM is different for every person in it. Some people are exclusively sexual, some people aren't sexual at all, and then you have most of the community where we have a mix of sexual and nonsexual kinks. Unfortunately I don't think the misleading definition is likely to change, not unless the same work is put into understanding kink in the same way that we are working to understand being LGBT. You can't wrap up kink in a nice little bow of "this is always only ever sexual" and call it a day.

I'm sure I'll touch on this a bit more tomorrow when I get a chance to write my thoughts on headspaces but I need to get back to bed.

[icewuerfelchen]

man gender stuff can be so confusing for me... like i identify really strongly as a lesbian and that connects me to womanhood. most of the time im okay with being read as a girl but sometimes i wish i wasnt? i definitely don’t wanna be read as a man but idkkkk sometimes i just wanna be perceived as like A Void Being if that makes sense. not even in the sense that i want people to look at me and be unsure what my gender is i just want to be perceived Without Gender sometimes does that make sense

[lollytea]

If Willow ever opened up to Hunter about the way she was bullied and things she went through what do you imagine Hunter responding or his reaction after listening to a more detailed version of why people ever called her “Half a Witch” ?

If you really want to know how I personally imagine it going, I wrote this exact scene in My fic Sunshine of Willow explaining her past and Hunter's extremely conflicted thoughts on the matter. However this was pre Hollow Mind!Hunter who is quite different from the Hunter we see in the season 2 finale. This is what a week hanging out with Willow and Gus does to a mf. However, I think there's still some insecurities in him that linger which wouldnt change all that much over time. But if you've already read it, you dont care to read it, or you don't wanna tear through 30k words to get your answer, I'll try to give some thoughts on it here.

It's honestly kinda hard to say for certain how he would react as there's a lot of factors to take into consideration.

Hunter seems pretty resigned to the inherent prejudice of the Boiling Isles and how witches who suck at magic are often treated as less. He's internalized it, as he honestly considers himself to be half-a-witch and, while he desperately tries to prove that he has some worth, it will never be enough for him. And its like. He thinks he deserves to be treated that way, he thinks he deserves to be called that, he has accepted that this is just how their world works.

But that just begs the question of if he would accept the status quo so easily if he heard how it has negatively impacted someone else. And not just anyone but a friend that he cares about a lot. Would hearing Willow's similar experiences just make him shrug and be like "yeah it sucks but being half a witch is just the kind of thing we have to deal with." Or would this open his eyes to the reality that hey, maybe Willow didn't deserve to be treated that way, and for that matter, maybe he didn't either.

Hunter has a huge sense of compassion but he has trouble understanding that it is something he is worthy of receiving because his self-worth is so tattered. But seeing his own pain reflected in Willow might be the thing that forces him to look at things from a new perspective. Hunter is a lot more introspective than he's given credit for, but a good chunk of it has been refrained by his mindset of denial and blind obedience while in the Emperor’s Coven. But I feel like now that he's free from all of that, he's finally allowing himself to think in ways he couldn't before. His emotional maturity is beginning to come to the surface.

It's also something that spurs him into exercising that compassion of his. I think he would definitely make honest attempts to comfort his friends after the events of Labyrinth Runners. That doesn't mean he's perfect at it. But he does absorb the lessons he learns and can can echo them to those who taught them to him in the first place. It reminds them that he was listening and that they made a positive impact on him. And sometimes when you're feeling useless, it's a nice thing to be reminded of.

Maybe he would take a deep breath and begin to list everything that he believes makes Willow Park the fullest witch he's ever known. It's supposed to be factual statements but his own overwhelming admiration and personal opinions eventually blurs the lines. He botches his words again and again until he gets it all out. And when he's finally done, Willow staring out him with eyes blown wide, he simply says "You've been misjudged. So...do you still think you're pathetic?"

Willow couldn't lie to him so all she can do is shake her head.

I feel like, at the point the two of them are at, they can have an open reflective conversation about the whole half-a-witch thing and what it means to them. I'm not writing that whole conversation out but I feel like it would deeply therapeutic for both of them.