#in my opinion kink is one of the most normal things out there - its cultural attitudes towards it that are weird

[despite-everything]

checked out this book on sexual intelligence at the library and it’s honestly fascinating. i know i’ve been reading theory on sex for years now, but i’ve never considered myself an expert by any means, but it’s fascinating to read this book and only be able to think “good lord you people live like this??”

like i’m more than aware that the average american isn’t particularly sexually liberated, but i really assumed that if people were so fucking hung up on the idea of sex being the epitome of pleasure and intimacy, they’d at least be less fucking weird about it

[sammy--moh]

A random ramble about my identity, modern queer community and queer history bc I'm hyperfixated

(I don't want slur discourse under my post. I reclaim words that have been directly used to oppress me only and only towards myself, that's where the conversation ends)

(Cis/Hets don't touch this post

Terfs especially don't even look at this post

Anti kink fuckers don't look at this post, kink and LGBT are separate things but you cannot untangle kink history from queer/LGBT history

If your against the use of the word queer, don't clown on this post

Queer cis people are free to interact and add their opinions but don't clown on this post

Trans people and queer punks and activists please interact <3

Any corrections are welcomed as long as their constructive)

So you could probably find a few posts of me talking about some of my more modern and neo/xeno identity labels, its something I'm fairly proud of I'm a neo pronoun user and have been out as a nonbinary man for a long time

But I don't think I talk about my more, I guess classical and older queer labels and that feels disingenuous because I do still love queer history and have a lot of what would be considered ""outdated"" identieies

Yeah I'm a neo user and have some xeno gender labels, and I'm T4T which as far as I know is a label thats been around a long time but its still common and normally used today

But im also just a gender nonconformist(sometimes i use and reclaim the words transexual and transvestite just to piss off cis people who say i cant), i unapolgetically reclaim the word f4g, im in the leather community, I'm a fem man, im a cub, all things that have been around maybe since the 60s - 70s that I/still/ find connection to, comfort and community in

I mean hell I usually consider myself to currently be in a masc 4 fem relationship which you'd probably never guess by just looking at me

Which is another thing! Why is it always assumed that cubs and bears are the mascs?? I think I have more traditionally feminine clothing and presentation then most of my twink friends, I am a big, fat, extroverted, hairy cub and I am still the fem in one of my relationships and very feminine and fem presenting in general

Obviously masc 4 fem is not the only kind of mlm and wlm relationship that's stupid sndnd and expecting it is heteronormative, some people are masc 4 masc,fem 4 fem, heck not everyone /likes/ traditional masc fem labels and that's awesome!

Another thing I don't see a lot of people talk about is the fact that the bear and cub community is objectively a body positivity movement, that's what it started as that's what it always will be

Bear culture was a reaction to the beauty standards of gay culture at the time, when the ideal in gay relationships were young, thin, conventionally attractive gay and bi/multisexual men

Bear culture was specifically made to appreciate, lift up, and love large, hairy,sometimes older gay and bi/multsexual men and cub culture branched off from bears

I'm gonna be honest, I am recovering from a few body image issues and disorders that I wont go in depth on, and bear + cub culture has helped me to love myself and my body and find myself attractive more than any other body positivity space! Not to say other body positvity spaces arent important and needed, but that as a queer trans man this one has been the space I felt the most welcomed in

I wish there were a few expectations we could leave behind, like the idea that bears and cubs only date other bears and cubs, that terms like bear, twink, otter, leather gay, ect are gay exclusive and not just mlm and nwlnw terms, that fem and masc culture are gay and lesbian exclusive (dont come at me there are several moments in history we see these terms used by bi and generally queer men and that show masc and fem culture in bi and generally queer spaces)

I wish I could find more people like me in history, trans men who weren't masc, transmen and transmascs that were unapologetically feminine, I want to find transman queens in history, trans gay and mlm men, it's hard to find.. but I'm almost positive there has to be at least some people like me in queer history

But in general there's so much we can learn and keep from older queer culture that I feel has been lost a lot with younger generations

I love modern queer culture and neo/xeno labels and communities ans MOGAI and the breakdown of gender norms and sexual expectations

But im also unapolgetically a fem, leather loving, kinkster, trans fucking, fat cub, cross dressing faggot

All of these things are me

You cannot untangle or separate these identieies and labels from /me/

There are riots and loss in my history, and there is raw, unapolgetic queer beauty as well. there is pride in my veins, and fight in my lungs, and I wouldn't trade any of it for shit

[sketchy-saram]

Hey everyone! I realize Pride Month just ended, but I wanted to talk about Asexuality for a minute, so I hope you'll indulge me since I have no idea what day it is normally and missed the obvious chance xD 

So my discovery that I was Ace happened when I was in Korea circa 2016, although I'd heard of it a few years before, from the Girls with Slingshots web comic! Both of these things occurred long after I was already an adult, however, and its existence is something I sorely wish I'd known about as a teenager. Hence, I'd really like to spread information about Asexuality to those who might not know anything, so you can be more comfortable with the idea, more informed, and perhaps pass that information to others around you who might be confused and questioning themselves! Pass it on, save a life! (Or at least a LOT of heartache and confusion!) If you already know stuff, great! You’re awesome! <3

So what IS Asexuality? Is it like, budding? Haha, funny joke. (Not really.) Asexuality is simply the lack of sexual attraction to anyone. It is an umbrella term for a lot of different classifications of Aces, but that's the basics. Allosexuals would be what is considered 'normal'--people who do experience sexual attraction. And yes, this is completely different from ROMANTIC attraction! But we'll get to that a bit later!

Why are Asexuals considered part of the LGBTQIA+ rainbow? Well, it's right there in the letters! The A never stood for ally--it always meant Asexual. We've been there since the very beginning! The Queer community envelopes all people whose gender and sexual identities fall outside the norm--so when our society, and humanity as a whole, so idealizes sex and sexual relations, I think not feeling those urges more than qualifies us! And if that weren't enough, Asexuals experience plenty of stigma and harassment--even gatekeeping from within the community, which is extremely unfortunate. In fact, in online social spaces, ESPECIALLY tumblr, Asexuality went through a major witchhunt about 5 years ago, where the waves of anti-Ace rhetoric were so bad that they basically eradicated the community and forced aces back into the closet. Things are better now, but the ramifications are still sorely felt. Aces also have a much higher chance of unstable relationships, as sex and the desire to have sex plays such a large role in romantic relationships. If you are allosexual, imagine being in a relationship where your partner never wants to have sex, and trying to understand that that doesn't reflect at all on you or how much they love you. It's hard, right? I'm not saying that Ace/Allo relationships can't happen, but it takes a LOT of work and communication!! (Uhm, and also plenty of allo people just have a low libido, so please remember not to be forcing your partners into unwanted sexual activities!!)

So let's talk more about the specific wording. 'Sexual attraction'. Simply put, that is the feeling when you look at someone, and you KNOW that you want to have sexual relations with them. Your body has reactions that might let you know this, like an erection, and you could imagine yourself doing those things. Aces aren't like that! We don't have those urges. I could go the rest of my life happily not having sex--and I've never looked at someone and wanted to do that. Now, like I said, there are quite a few umbrella versions, but that is the general description. Important things to note however: Asexual people CAN CHOOSE to have sex! If you're an Allo who has ever done it with someone you weren't exactly turned on by, then you can understand what I'm talking about. Some Aces can even ENJOY the act of sex! The two aren't necessarily related--remember, we're just talking about lacking the basic spark of sexual attraction. On the flip side, some Aces are so sex repulsed that the very idea makes them sick. If you know an Ace person, you should ask their opinion on sex before you talk about it with them--it might make them EXTREMELY uncomfortable! On that note, plenty of Asexual people are in the kink community, and enjoy BDSM. How can that be, you might ask? Well, for one, read above again about Aces and Sexual relations. But also, if you aren't in those communities, you may not realize just how much power plays into that. Some people enjoy the power play more than the sex!! So if your knee-jerk reaction to finding out someone is Ace and has sex is to think they are 'faking it', please...don't. You can't know what a person's internal workings are like.

So, why would an Asexual person want a relationship? How would that even work, anyway? Isn't it just like being friends? Well I'm glad you asked! Remember earlier when I said that Asexuality is only about the lack of SEXUAL attraction? ROMANTIC attraction has its own categories! Aromantics are people who aren't ROMANTICALLY attracted to other people. I won't get into that here, but suffice it to say that Aces can be as romantic and loving as anyone else, and many want a happy relationship! As for being like friends--imagine your partner or spouse. If you suddenly couldn't have sex with them, would it feel like the two of you were 'just friends'? No, of course not! Romantic attachment forms bonds that are completely different from platonic friendship. Lack of sex isn't the only thing that keeps your friendships from being 'romantic relationships', and if it is, you, uh...might want to reevaluate some things!!

A few other common items I want to mention before I bring this quick Ace 101 course to a close: Is being Ace just like being celibate? Not at all! Choosing to remain celibate is just that--a CHOICE. Someone who is celibate still has all their natural sexual attraction, they are just choosing not to act on those feelings for whatever reason. Aces don't have those urges, or that natural sexual attraction! 

Can you become Asexual through trauma or other reasons? The long and the short answer is: Yes. One of the great things about the LGBTQIA+ community is that you should be free to come and go as you discover more about your own truth. That is also why gatekeeping is so dangerous--you shouldn't have to 'register' as Gay or Ace or Trans, or present as those things in a way that suits other people. If you, in your heart, find that one of these labels suits you, then that is what you are for now! Gender and sexuality are a journey most people aren't encouraged to discover until they're older. If you realize you are Ace at 70, you are just as valid as someone who found out earlier, or someone who underwent severe trauma and now no longer feels sexual attraction. If YOU are comfortable with where you're at, that's the only thing that matters! But if it is something that causes you distress, then please look into it. Sometimes lack of sexual attraction IS caused by physical or psychological factors that can be reversed. (Although again, more often than not it simply causes lack of libido, not necessarily lack of attraction.)

Last but not least...what's the thing with the cake? Haha! Good question! When Aces were beginning to find one another and set up their own communities, several inside jokes began to emerge. Imagery of ace playing cards, dragons, 'space ace', and of course cake, sprang up as quirky ways to reference that. The idea being that you would rather have cake than sex!!

I really hope I didn't miss anything obvious, but I'm just writing this on the fly because realizing my Asexuality was such a huge stepping-stone on my path to being more comfortable with myself, and understanding myself as a whole. I spent my teenage years terrified of and yearning for a relationship--the reason being, of course, that in my mind, dating and sex went hand in hand, and I wanted the one but was terrified of the other. So many people take sexual attraction for granted, without realizing how alienating that can be for people who DON'T feel that attraction. It's pervasive!! It's everywhere! And then to be treated as though that expectation isn't as all-encompassing as it is, or that it actually doesn't exist at all, is cultural gaslighting. 

Anyway! I hope everyone had a wonderful pride month. <3 Hope to see you for the next one! Have an awesome July as well, what the heck! And if you have any questions about Asexuality, my messages are always open. I aim to inform. (And feel free to share this if you want!! Knowledge is power, but making things that seem awkward to talk about less taboo is ALSO power!)

[ratingtheframe]

Why Armie Hammer’s Scandal Is More Than Kink Shaming

The 34 year old actor has had numerous allegations thrown his way this past month, from cannibalism to an obsession with BDSM. But do these allegations go beyond a widely accepted community of kink lovers and venture into deeply rooted misogyny?

Warning: this article contains mentions of cannibalism and sexual assault. 

For those of you who aren’t aware of Armie Hammer’s presence on screen, you may be scratching your head and wondering what on earth people are talking about, seeing the cannibalism aspect to this all as face value without making the connection between Hammer’s past behaviours and current allegations. The actor who rose to prominence in Aaron Sorkin and David Fincher’s The Social Network (2013) playing both of the Winklevoss twins, has become quite the favourite amongst the film industry. His role Oliver in Luca Guadagnino’s Call me by your name (2017) has sent Twitter into a permanent frenzy as memes and daily adoration for Chalamet and Hammer’s on screen romance continue to thrive even 4 years after the film's release. As well as Call me your name, Hammer is known for roles in Sorry to Bother You (2018), Rebecca (2020), On the Basis of Sex (2018) and soon to be released, Death on The Nile (2021). He currently has another film due to be released and a Call me by your name sequel in development. Sounds as if he’s got a lot going for him and despite him not being the biggest star to be churned out of Hollywood today, the recognition is still there and with that, he’s still being paid. 

The Allegations

At the beginning of the year, an account emerged under the handle of @houseofeffie, that was created to expose some lurid and unpleasant communication between several women and Armie Hammer. Some of which he had relations with whilst married to his now ex wife Elizabeth Chambers. The nature of these dms are incredibly disturbing and worrying considering that Hammer not only has children but as an actor, spends a proportionate time around women.

These are just a few of the messages that were exposed that led the media to brandish Hammer as a “cannibal”:

Hammer:

 “You are the god damned standard I hold women to in terms of kink and enjoyment of fucking the[n]...”

“I need to drink your blood, why the distance?” “...thinking of holding your heart in my head and controlling when it beats”

“I am 100% a cannibal...I want to eat you....Fuck...that’s scary to admit..”

“I’ve cut the heart out of a living animal before and eaten it while still warm”

“You were the most intense and extreme version [that I’ve ever had]. Raping you on the floor with a knife against you. Everything else seemed boring”

“You [were] crying and screaming, me standing over you.  I felt like a god. I’ve never felt such power or intensity.”

“You just live to obey and be my slave”

“Would you come and be my property till you die? If I wanted to cut off one of your toes and keep it with me in my pocket so I always had a piece of you in my possession?”

“I want to see your brain, your blood, your organs, every part of you… I would definitely bite it...100%”

...O-kay. Lots to unpack here. First and fore mostly, I’d like to address the kink shaming element to all of this. I personally don’t see any harm in kinks, BDSM, pornography, as long as people are consenting and aren’t inflicting unsolicited pain upon people. Therefore, kink shaming and finding Hammer’s taste in sexual preferences isn’t what we are here to discuss. In fact when I first read the allegations, that wasn’t even my initially thought. CNN posted an article two days ago titled “Armie Hammer May Be Disturbed, But Is Shaming Him the Answer?” an opinion based article by Aaron Weaver that explores the allegations and believes Hammer shouldn’t be shamed for his kinks. But this begs the question whether Hammer was actually being shamed? I didn’t see much evidence for this seeing as people were mostly horrified by his taste in human flesh than anything else, a kink that is uncommon in the BDSM community and is only practiced by the most extreme. 

Kinks aside, the most worrying thing about the DMs above is the way in which he views women and their bodies. It’s clear to see that he might not have much respect for women seeing as he proudly states his willingness to cut them up and drink their blood. And funnily enough, the sexual objectification of women’s bodies for one's own sexual pleasure without considering their comfortability is classed as misogyny. A reddit user made an extremely good point on a thread about Hammer’s scandal stating:

“To me, the problem is not that he’s into rough sex, or that he has kinks some people find scary. It’s not about yucking his yum, so to speak. I’m more concerned that he may have ignored safe words and pushed his partners beyond their limits. I feel like the media is focusing so much on his kinks and sexuality as opposed to his ignoring of consent, which is a complete and utter inversion of priorities”

Past Relationships

Another example of Hammer disrespecting the boundaries of women and sexual pleasure would be his past girlfriend Paige Lorenze. Lorenze is a 23 year model and former professional skier who has shone a light on Hammer’s worrying behaviour and his involvement in BDSM activity. The sources of Lorenze’s allegations are highly unreliable, which is one of the most frustrating things about this entire charade. The BBC BRIEFLY covered the fact that Hammer dropped out of his latest film amid the allegations, without fully going into detail about the allegations or the abuse subjected towards his former partners. It just goes to show we’re rubbish at taking abuse seriously enough to the point where people are punished for their wrongdoings. Had a more reliable news source covered this story, then it’d make it more viable to the public. Even though this scandal is in its early days, that doesn’t necessarily mean it's unimportant or should be swept under the rug along with the hundreds of other scandals that Hollywood refuses to expose.

Only the Daily Mail, The Sun and Page Six seem to have gone in depth with the accusations, making the entire story rather murky for the reader. Anyhow, Paige Lorenze said to the Daily Mail that Hammer had carved an ‘A’ above her groin without her consent and licked it whilst it bled. He had also reportedly tied her up and hit her with paddles to fuel his BDSM obsession and sexual desires. Lorenze was quoted saying 'Any man who is fantasizing about crushing bones, eating them, having sex with female limp bodies is a danger to all women'. Hammer insisted to Lorenze that his behaviour was normal, and that there was an entire community of people that carried out the same things he did on her. This is partially correct seeing as the global sex play market is worth over $30 billion, with practices in such activities dating back to the mid 19th century. However, the one thing the BDSM community doesn’t condone is not giving consent, which is where the fine line is drawn in between Hammer’s sexual preferences and the BDSM community. His choice to carve that ‘A’ into Lorenze isn’t backed up by a wider community of people who enjoy a variety of sexual pleasure. Lorenze claims he also DMed nude photos of her being tied up to people without her consent, further perpetuating Hammer’s lack of respect towards people’s boundaries. This is a serious incident, that sees someone with more power (Hammer is 6’5 and Lorenze is 5’6 btw) assert their dominance and by doing so, degrades and harms someone else. We shouldn’t be kink shaming Hammer, but shaming him for thinking that this behaviour is acceptable.

Hammer’s previous relationships can also draw some light into his lack of respect for women. He and his wife Elizabeth Chambers divorced in July 2020 after a decade of marriage. Though it's unknown what triggered the separation, these recent allegations may have something to do with it. Furthermore, two other women have come forward to express their distaste towards Hammer and his questionable fantasies. Entrepreneur and ex-girlfriend of Armie Hammer, Courtney Vucekovich, told Page Six that Hammer wanted to “break [her] rib and barbecue it and eat it”. She also expressed how easy it was for Hammer to charm his way through into getting women, especially young women into doing what he wants through “active manipulation and making you feel like he’s never felt this way about anybody.” Lorenze was also subjected to similar retort after reporting that Hammer too wanted to barbecue one of her ribs because she “didn’t need it”. Writer Jessica Ciencen Henriquez took to twitter last summer after a lunch date with Hammer and expressed that she had blocked him on Instagram. She later went on to tweet this:

“If you are still questioning whether or not those Armie Hammer DMs are real (and they are) maybe you should start questioning why we live in a culture willing to give abusers the benefit of the doubt instead of victims”

Exactly my point here. There’s not much to this scandal other than the fact that several people were hurt and undermined and someone else caused it. Someone who is societally above everyone because of their race, class, status and gender, with a well connected and dominant family support system. 

His background and past 

Hammer comes from a very powerful and wealthy family. Hammer’s great grandfather, Armand Hammer, was the chief executive officer and president of the Occidental Petroleum company founded in 1920. Now if you’re wondering the exact scale of such a company that is still running today, they are the 4th largest oil and gas acquisition in the entire world worth over $100 billion. ONE HUNDRED, BILLION, DOLLARS. Not all actors in Hollywood can say that their great-grandfathers were worth that much, which gives me little hope in seeing Hammer be held accountable for what he’s done. He was also kicked out of UCLA after apparently not “being able to do it”.  Just another rich white male with enough power, malice and money to work his way around any struggle.

Now that we’ve established Hammer’s allegations, it’s worth looking back to see whether the signs of such behaviour were already prevalent in the numerous interviews he partook in over the years. Complex highlighted an episode of The Late Show with Stephen Colbert from 2017, where the host brought up Hammer’s obsession with knots, to which he laughed off and claimed that “knots make sense” that they are a “language” and referenced how man used knots before the wheel. Valid points but ones that are debunked in light of his interest in BDSM. during a 2013 interview with Playboy (appropriate) Hammer expressed that his “sexual appetites changed'' when he married his wife and that hair pulling used to be something he enjoyed but could no longer do now that he was married “even though he wanted to”. This is quite the backwards comment when we’re talking about respecting boundaries and it's clear to see it was only a matter of time before his desires could no longer be repressed.

Since this whole shit storm began to travel Hammer’s way, he has since dropped out of the film The Billion Dollar Spy, which would’ve seen him star alongside Jennifer Lopez. BBC News reported that this move was made as Hammer stated that “I cannot in good conscience now leave my children for four months to shoot a film in the Dominican Republic” following the ‘vicious’ online abuse he’s been subjected to. Hammer was again put in the firing line by Grand Cayman law enforcement for lying about a woman provocatively shown in a video was Miss Cayman of the Miss Cayman beauty pageant that’s held on the island. He and the woman were warned for their misconduct and had confirmed the matter is now closed. 

Final Thoughts

There are enough red flags in Hammer’s behaviour to open up a flag store, and I would go as far as to say that this isn’t the end of it. For someone who’s grown up having the majority of things they want, it's easy to want more beyond morality and despite the discomfort of others. Hammer’s move to drop out of his latest film was an attempt to lessen the blow of hate being turned towards him as opposed to the benefit of those he’s hurt. So far, him and his lawyer have denied all allegations and further action hasn’t been taken against the Hollywood star. He’s apologised for the DMs and brandished his actions a “foolish attempt at humour”. 

Wrapping his own behaviour up in humour is an attempt to detract from the severity of the behaviour itself, whilst excusing it, something he can get away with because of his status. 

Major media outlets haven’t done much in even attempting to expose this man’s behaviour and have left it up to unreliable sources to piece together the true persona of Armie Hammer. Though innocent until proven guilty, common sense is widely available to the general public meaning we should be delving into the past a little and comparing it to these allegations. Along with Hammer’s character, family and unnerving Instagram posts of cutting up meat and eating raw steak, there doesn’t seem to be much in the actor’s favour. 

All I would say is as a director, producer, writer or actor, would you feel comfortable in being associated with someone who believes they're a cannibal and marvels at the idea of drinking human blood? Or someone who goes as far to objectify women to the point where they become nothing but sexual fulfilment and pieces of meat? 

That’s all I’ll say and those who do feel comfortable doing such a thing means that Hammer may still have a career at the end of the day. One point to Hollywood, no points to political correctness and respecting women. 

[firelxdykatara]

I think if fiction didn’t matter we wouldn’t be rallying for better representation. But at the same time, there’s plenty of fiction that so clearly doesn’t try to impose a moral. Are you of the opinion that any fiction that displays objectively horrible things in a gratifying lense should be banned? Would you call people who liked the saw films monsters? What about first person shooter games? Any porn that features power imbalances as a kink?

Short answer, to all of those questions: No. Absolutely not.

But of course, as it’s me, have a much longer answer:

Here’s the thing that the ‘FICTION AFFECTS REALITY’/’IF YOU LIKE DARKFIC YOU’RE A MONSTER’ crowd fails to realize: when we say ‘fiction is not reality’ we are not saying ‘fiction doesn’t matter’ or ‘fiction has no affect on reality whatsoever’. What we are saying is that fiction does not have a direct, 1:1 affect on reality. ‘Normal’ people will NEVER read a piece of fiction and suddenly become a pedophile. Normal people will not read a piece of fiction and forget about boundaries. Normal people will not read a piece of fiction and suddenly think that societal taboos which used to disgust them are A-OK and then try to enact them in their real lives.

Antis really love to cite the Jaws Effect when talking about how fiction affects reality, but they miss one crucial point--Jaws was playing on the pre-existing fears of the movie-going public. (And also the fact that Jaws had millions of viewers worldwide and reached a far greater audience, and therefore had far greater impact, than some niche darkfic on ao3 ever will.) It’s the same argument that’s been trotted out again and again by the ‘violent video games turn normal happy kids into school shooters’ crowd. Can playing violent video games temporarily heighten someone’s aggression/make someone already prone to violence even more aggressive? Sure. Will playing violent video games (or watching/reading violent media) make someone with a normally healthy emotional responses to stimuli suddenly become a violent person? Absolutely not.

Like, I love games like Assassin’s Creed: Odyssey. I love slipping into Ancient Greece and running around, merrily hacking and slashing my way through Athenians and Spartans. I’ve never once gotten the urge to pick up a sword and go outside and start sticking it in people. I know plenty of people who love Grand Theft Auto and don’t have a violent bone in their body. I greatly enjoy taking head shots as a sniper in Mass Effect, but I’ve never picked up a high-powered rifle in my life. (I go to the shooting range sometimes, with my grandad’s old .22, but I certainly have never wanted to shoot anyone with it.) My taste for video game violence has never translated to my reactions or interactions with other people in real life. Because I’m not a violent person, and while I can’t say I’m mentally healthy, I can say that I’ve never wanted to hurt other people. (And I have one of those ‘scary’ mental illnesses that get demonized all the time in popular media.)

So like, here’s the thing: first of all, the argument that video game or media violence (or abuse, rape, incest, pedophilia, etc) creates violence (or etc) in otherwise normal people is absolute bullshit. You may hear antis trotting out the Slenderman killings as another example, but they again fail to take into account that even if the game was the trigger, it was not the cause, and if it hadn’t existed, something else would have set them off. (And that was 2 people out of the, I’m gonna guess, millions of people who’ve played the game or watched let’s plays or whatever else. Not exactly terrifying odds.)

Secondly, you have to remember that while fiction and reality do have a relationship and do have an affect on one another, that affect is far more noticeable from the other direction. Fiction informs reality--it is often a direct reflection of it. This is why Greek tragedies became so popular--because people saw in them the human condition, in all its ugliest parts, and found extreme catharsis in watching it unfold. And this is part of why, yes, representation is so important--because, right now, most fiction is not an accurate reflection of reality, and that creates an unbalanced dynamic that’s going to take a very long time to fix.

Which leads to my final point, that is most often overlooked by antis who insist that fiction cannot be separated from reality: mass media reaches a far greater audience than fanfiction. Yes, it’s bad that so much of Hollywood fare is white--because Hollywood has reach. Billions of people tune in to watch the latest blockbuster. Your average niche darkfic on ao3 will never reach that kind of audience, not in a million years. The effect of that reach is simply not comparable. If someone who is already prone to violence plays a game or watches a movie or tv show that glorifies it, sure, it may heighten their violent response, but that’s because it’s playing on something that’s already there. The fiction itself is not to blame for whatever the person who viewed it chooses to do.

One last thing, since this is something that I feel doesn’t get mentioned enough in these debates: if you’ve been following me long enough, you’ll probably have seen me rag on Twilight or 50 Shades of Grey. I hate both of those series’ with a burning passion. I think they’re badly written tripe, one of which began as fanfic of badly written tripe (and if 50sog had languished in the annals of internet obscurity as Master of the Universe and not become a multi-million dollar hit, I’d probably never have heard of it--again, the difference in reach between niche fanfic and a mass media sensation), and I hate the way the abusive relationships in both of them are glorified. I think the ‘themes’ Twilight spoonfed preteen girls who ate it up are harmful. I think the racism involved in its depiction of the Quileute tribe was despicable. I think everything 50sog had to say about BDSM and the kink community is horrific, and deserves to be called out.

But you know what else these books did?

They started conversations. Conversations that may not have happened to such a wide degree had these books not become famous. (Not that I’m saying it’d be any great loss if they’d never seen the light of day, but hey, they did, and we have to live with the fallout, so at least something good came out of it.) Conversations that desperately needed to be had--about red flags in abusive relationships, about what is ok and not ok to do or say to your partner, about what consent is and what healthy relationships are, and what a healthy BDSM/kink relationship should look like. (I swear to the gods if any anti kinksters start crawling all over this post, I will eat their toes. Stay out of consenting adults’ bedrooms for the love of all that is fucking holy.) Conversations about safe words and how to use them, and how it is always ok to use them please dear lord do not let things progress past the point of your comfort. Conversations about the real life Quileute tribe who has been trying for years to talk about the realities of tribal life, which were so butchered by Twilight, but that hopefully brought more awareness and helped show what not to do when you’re incorporating a real life culture into your work.

These are important conversations, which may not have been had to the widespread degree that they were and are were it not for the cultural phenomena that sparked them. So no, I don’t think it’s wrong to point out if an author is, for instance, glorifying harmful things in their works--however, I do think that the reach of the work in question matters. If you’re targeting a work with a few thousand hits at most, ask yourself: why? Why this work, and not an actual cultural powerhouse like, say, Game of Thrones, which features such hits as the showrunners openly admitting they waited for a teenage actress to turn 18 so they could film a scene where her character is brutally raped on screen? Why is it so important to draw attention to some niche work of darkfic (especially if it’s properly tagged so that it can be avoided by anyone to whom it would be harmful; and by the way, these tags don’t exist for things like, oh, VC Andrews novels, which any kid can pick up in a library without warning; I think that even a glorified/romanticized rape scene that is tagged as rape on ao3 is less harmful than similar themes occurring without warning in a book I picked up because it had pretty flowers on the cover), when you can easily find the exact same things in published, popular fiction?

Just something to think about, before trying to insist that fanfics that reach an audience of a few thousand at most are anywhere on the level of ‘affecting reality’ the same way that mass media that reaches billions is capable of.

[little-logurt]

Not mine obviously, but I found it on reddit and it seems like it was very well put.

Not into DD/LG myself, but I've always been confused on the negative views on it, since the origin seems obvious to me... but considering my mother is a bisexual dominatrix who handmakes leather bondage gear, I suppose I am lucky to better understand these sorts of things better than most.

First off, I don't think I'll be able to change your mind as to why it's creepy -- in kink culture there is something known as "squick", aka, something you don't find attractive, and rather are repulsed by, might even find it creepy, -- not because you necessarily think it's evil, but because it's just not something you're in to. Like some people just Aren't Into Anal, etc. Or they might be grossed out by feet so they might find foot fetishists creepy. And that's perfectly fine.

So maybe I can at least give you a different perspective into DD/LG that might help you conceptualize it in a more meaningful way.

Another term for the this dynamic, which in my opinion is a better name for it since it better describes the dynamic itself, rather than the aesthetic theme, is caregiver / little (CGL). DD/LG and CGL are a type of trust kink. What's a trust kink? Well, the most famous (infamous?) and well known trust kink is BDSM -- Bondage, domination, sadism and masochism. When you think of BDSM, you probably think of leather and ballgags and whips and chains, right? That is what you can describe the aesthetic of BDSM, but it's not what BDSM is actually about.

BDSM is about having a level of trust with the person you are doing BDSM with. Without trust, BDSM is just abuse. And there's something you'll hear anti-kink folks scream their heads off. "THIS IS THINLY VEILED ABUSE!" Well... with actual abuse, you don't have a safe word. With actual abuse, you cannot trust your partner to stop when you tell them to stop, with said safe word. In BDSM, you are with someone you overwhelmingly trust to hurt you -- but not so much that it will actually hurt you mentally. You enter an extremely vulnerable role as a submissive, you are allowing someone to cause you bodily harm. This isn't an easy thing to do, you need to be able to genuinely trust the other person to harm you but not THAT much. BDSM doesn't need leather whips and chains to be BDSM. BDSM can be pretty mild, as long as it based around surrender of control based on extreme trust.

So, I feel like DD/LG and CGL is a form of BDSM, or better put, it's a form of trust kink. Instead of the little submitting their control in a BDSM way and being tied up and while they're whipped, they are instead surrendering control in a very different kind of power dynamic -- one often seen only between a caregiver and someone who needs care. Now, the most obvious aesthetic for this is the submissive being a little kid. The submissive is fully trusting their caregiver/daddy to take care of them, and to not harm them mentally. And this takes the form of pampering them like a child would be pampered, and punishing them like a child would be punished.

Now, one of the things even some BDSM people don't realize: BDSM isn't inherently sexual, and neither is CGL/DDLG. You can surrender power without it revolving around sex. In BDSM there are some genres that involve people basically being turned info human furniture, like acting like a coffee table, or being forced to do humilating servant tasks. No sex involved. But that trust required to submit like that is really enjoyable for folks -- even theraputic at times, if they had trouble trusting people in the past.

Same goes for CGL/DDLG. There's actually a LOT of the cgl community that is nonsexual about it. A lot of littles use it to reclaim childhood abuse or neglect and get to experience the "ideal" childhood they missed out on in a safe environment with people they can trust. This is actually really good for childhood-abuse PTSD. And some people get into normal old BDSM for the same reason as well.

Both BDSM and CGL need something known as aftercare, where the dom/caregiver helps the submissive back into the realspace, because if they are just ignored after a session, that can really hurt mentally. There's some interesting psychology behind it.

So yeah I hope that even if it's still creepy to you you at least understand its inner workings better now.

[vardasvapors]

🌻 ?

I’m making good on this meme’s Threat to talk about whatever I want, but I will mercifully add a cut, in order to post an embarrassing TMI 17-point list i wrote to my gf to summarize 17 all-consuming narrative kinks I’ve had all my life that are all satisfied by the concept of the Holy:

[MORE]

1) irreversible high-cost high-reward choices (and the associated intensity of Desire and Knowing Its Worth and Sacrificing and Electrifying Life-Changing Moment), extra good if being hit by the full reality of both what you’re sacrificing and what you’re getting into is accompanied with a sense of giddy euphoria/wild laughter/childlike glee

 2) double-edged swords/things that come with a Price but where the price/‘bad’ edge doesn’t invalidate the good edge and/or is actually inextricable from the good edge, the idea of the good edge existing without the bad edge being nonsensical (see e.g., peredhil choices)

3) permanent Marks/Changes/immutable evidence of an experience (sometimes magic ones, but also like scars, mutilations, intentional rite-of-passage things like tattoos/body-mod, or practical ones like sex - the misogyny of its cultural context soured it but when i was smol i used to be absolutely breathless about hymen-tearing l m a o) 

4) being turned on by/longing for things/experiences that are assumed to be universally unwanted/revolting/self-destructive/inhuman, freak-like, depraved   

5) an experience usually only possible for a moment made in some way to be eternal (including but not limited to variations like magically everpresent memory, experience being encrypted/packaged/imprinted) 

6) people experiencing/seeing/touching/reaching/speaking with/entering smth Sublime and Huge and Extreme (divine revelation just one example), going crazy and blissfully uncaring of norms or other’s opinions from ecstasy; either alone or in combination with words that are so powerful they can destroy or mark the speaker or hearer, sights/sounds/touches so powerful they destroy or mark the body, the abstract or metaphysical leaving its scarring or imprint on the physical

7) some kind of connection between a ‘small’ or ‘normal’ human and some sort of supernatural majestic creature (ranging from like, ‘just elves/humanoid aliens’ to ‘terrifying monster/fae’ to ‘incredibly inhuman magic/cosmic force’), esp when the rly powerful thing is rly Invested or interested in the Smol 

8) ppl being proud/fond/sanguine about a ‘gross’ or 'pity-inducing’ superficially-wretched state/disfigurement/mutilation/burden/lost attribute of theirs bc it’s Meaningful for a reason, lol buddhism stuff, or ppl being very cavalier/unfazed about displaying the signs or indicators of intimate personal info (markers of a religion/race/species, kink stuff like collars/brands, weird xeno and fantasy race shit)

9) extreme longings or desires or driving impulses that have no thought-out or concrete justification

10) fire (scientific nature of being the embodiment of a chemical process not a substance in itself, human history/development status, aesthetics and symbolic place) 

 11) light (esp science - speed, nature of photons, relationship to time, the age and travel distance of starlight, photosynthesis, the sun’s life-giving energy and sight-giving light + deadly destructive cosmic rays and blinding light) 

12) personified source universe creator god interpretations but like, ones where the interpretor has spent at least 3 seconds considering the god’s pov (v rare)

13) beings who are Too Much and/or Too Much for most but not all who encounter them; or hurt or inconvenience or overwhelm by their very nature but arent guilty abt it bc that’s their inescapable nature (eg the tardis, looking into the heart of the Tardis)

14) incidents where a weird counterintuitive emotionally-torquing respect/intimacy is demonstrated through extremely ungeneralizable and questionable/extreme/RACK edge cases where someone fulfills another person’s extremely dangerous/destructive/painful/freaky request/desire, and not holding back/making a diff decision abt the other person’s own good or smth  

15) ‘weird’ or ‘crazy’ and bizarrely blissful/unbotherable/spacey/unseemly-ly cheerful and jokey and easily amused ppl that are unsettling/mysterious to others due to being too happy, not performing emotions in expected ways, laughing at their own jokes or non-jokes, appearing to be noticing/thinking about something else, esp if they’re monks/mystics/shady wanderers/odd foreigners/really old decrepit Seen-It-All types, that post about astronauts when they return to earth

16) ppl who have been Extremely Changed by an Xtreem™ Experience they may not be able to explain or convey fully to others even if they’re willing to try 

 17) 2 ppl touching or exploring each other’s souls (esp when the two ppl r v v v diff in nature, including tho not limited to like, human + completely inhuman vast entity)

[thecorteztwins]

🔥 villains. 🔥 the hellfire club 🔥the difference between naive and unintelligent characters

Welp, this all got STUPIDLY LONG and I’m really sorry. Under a cut because HUUUUUGE.

🔥 villains.There’s just been a robbery! All the jewels in the museum’s vault have been stolen! The culprits are….Sabretooth and Magneto!Yeah, that doesn’t sound right, does it? Thievery isn’t really something either of them do, they’re not bank robber or cat burglar types at all. And Magneto’s not a fan of Sabes to my memory, it’s unlikely he’d work with him unless it was essential to his ACTUAL goals…which this isn’t. But hey, they’re both bad guys, so they must do ALL the bad things! No matter what it is, it’s in-character if it’s evil or unlawful, right?This is the logic that I see running both often in fandom, and also sometimes with canon writers. There’s a mentality that if someone is villainous or bad in ONE way, then they must be villainous or bad in ALL ways. I think there’s always been this misunderstanding, as people do tend to think in black and white a lot, but I think it’s also increased with the rise of purity culture in Tumblr, where people/characters/works are All Good or All Bad, and if the bad guys aren’t depicted as 1000% heinously evil then it’s APOLOGISM. An example in RP would be that more than once I’d had people expect Fabian to be a racist. I can see why, given that he expresses sexism, classism, a bit of ableism, and disgust with physical mutations. But not only does he never express racism, he never expresses racism DESPITE AMPLE OPPORTUNITY. Think about it—his main antagonists are Magneto (Jewish) and Quicksilver (Jewish and Romani), he once personally fights Bishop (Black and Indigenous Australian) one on one, he’s on one team with Shinobi (half white, half Japanese), and his allies/underlings in the second-gen Acolytes included people who are African American, Moroccan (and Muslim-coded), and Inuit. And he never, ever, EVER even THOUGHT anything related to race (or religions that are usually implicitly tied to race) about ANY of them. Given how blatant his other prejudices are, I think he would very much let the reader KNOW if he were racist, anti-Semitic, etc. An example in canon…look, I’m sorry to bring up this dead horse again, but it is the best example that I presently have—Sebastian Shaw making the “women’s work” comment. As with Fabian, I get why it makes sense on the surface. He’s a powerful man, the proverbial rich old white guy, and he’s part of an organization where women walk around in lingerie as a general rule. It seems like it makes sense, it does, I grant that. But then if you actually look at his history…for 40 years of canon, he’s been allies and enemies with many powerful women, and never made a remark about their gender, never relegated lesser or menial tasks to them, never treated any of them differently as partners or foes, he actually never even flirts with any of them, be they opponents or partners in crime  (except that ONE issue when Emma is in Storm’s body and he kisses her…yeah that was a weird issue, why does a telepath need a gun to switch bodies?) Which is pretty unusual for a male Claremont villain. And he actually reacts with “I…see.” the one time a comrade makes a genuinely sexist remark. He doesn’t agree with him, he’s more like “wow ok I can’t believe he said that but I guess I’ll let it go since I want to recruit him” So, it’s actually VERY odd for him to suddenly say something like that, once you know the character. Especially since, like Fabian, he had TONS of opportunity in the past and he’s also not a character that most writers want to seem sympathetic or likeable. So it’s unlikely the writers were just trying to make him look good by playing down some secret sexist tendencies all this time or something. It’s more likely he just doesn’t have them BUT IS STILL A HORRIBLE PERSON! He just doesn’t need to be horrible in every way! Most people, even the MOST terrible, aren’t horrible in EVERY WAY POSSIBLE.That’s also why I try to avoid having Fabian being too homophobic (beyond “I can convert lesbians”) or transphobic, despite the fact that I *could* justify it (since those things are very intertwined with sexism)—because he’s awful enough. Giving him additional bigotries just seems stupidly redundant and cheap. Especially since I think people actually hate a bigoted character more than they hate a murderer; like I feel like if Duggan ever graduates to Shaw making a racist or homophobic remark, I might have to close his blog, but it’s fine to have blogs for fictional serial killers. By the same token, a villain having good traits doesn’t somehow eliminate their bad ones, especially if the good and bad traits are unrelated to each other. A mass murderer supervillain is not “actually a good guy deep down” because he loves his family; it’s actually VERY common for even genocidal dictators to care for their own. Hell, not to go all Godwin, but Hitler was an animal-lover and had a beloved dog. You can certainly point to good traits to show that a villain isn’t ALL bad (which as I just said, I support) but not being “all bad” isn’t the same as “actually a good person and just misunderstood!” Like, Shaw being an egalitarian in a lot of regards or was good to Madelyne Pryor or loved his father, doesn’t change he’s a heartless, morally bankrupt monster who abused his son and sold out an entire oppressed species (his own, no less) for his own financial gain. Mystique is an incredibly complex character, far more so than Shaw, but her love for Destiny and Rogue and many of her other good points don’t change that she hunted down other mutants for the government, abused her human son for not being a mutant, has committed rape by deception numerous times (though I think that’s due to the writers not realizing that’s a thing), constantly tries to manipulate her daughter’s life and choices, and I’m pretty sure I recall an issue where she framed a guy for domestic abuse just for funsies?Basically, villains are people. They have individual different traits and beliefs and motives, and those things will drive them towards individual different types of villainy. One villain probably won’t do the same kind of villainy that another does. Likewise, someone being a shitty person in one way, or many ways, doesn’t mean they will be in ALL ways. Pointing this out isn’t the same thing as denying their flaws or defending them, but some people do do this and that’s wrong too. Nuance needs to be allowed for. Pointing out Shaw isn’t awful in every way doesn’t mean I think he’s a misunderstood woobie whose crimes should all be forgiven. Pointing out Mystique has done awful shit doesn’t mean I think she’s pure evil and all her complex points should be ignored. It just means I don’t think characters should be strawmanned by fans OR writers as paragons or demons, especially when it contradicts what canon has actually established (with the caveat that canon is dumb sometimes too, and also some characters canonically ARE one extreme or the other, but I’m talking about ones who AREN’T)🔥 the hellfire clubI’ll give two on this! One is “unpopular” just in the sense it’s not something I’ve ever heard anyone express, but I’ve never heard an opinion in opposition to it either. The other is “unpopular” in that it does directly contradict a popularly held opinion.The first is that I think it’s stupid that Grant Morrisson made The Hellfire Club into a strip club, and it’s stupid that writers since depicted it this way. The Hellfire Club is shown in the 80s and 90s as being, first and foremost, an elite social club for the wealthiest and most powerful people in society. It’s basically a big posh country club, and most of its members are just regular people. Super duper rich people, but still normal people, lots of old money and new money and big business owners and politicians and probably royalty/nobility. Most of what they’re doing is big fancy, stuffy galas and balls, that kind of thing. But under the surface, it’s hinted that there is indeed a much more sexual underside to it. The female staff wear very fetishy maid costumes, the female Inner Circles literally have dominatrix lingerie as their getups, and while we actually never see what goes on beyond the closed doors in the 80s, nor was anything directly stated, the hints are definitely there that it’s as libertine in the private rooms as they are prim and proper in the ballrooms. We don’t know WHAT exactly is happening, only that it’s dark and decadent and surely sexual in some kind of “abnormal” (read: kink shaming) way.And then it turns out it’s just a strip club where the dancers wear corsets? Really? REALLY? I’m sorry, you expect me to belief that these oh-so-forbidden and secretive sexual delights that are available only to the richest and most powerful people in the world are…a TITTY BAR WITH NO ACTUAL TITTIES EVEN OUT???? That’s the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard! It’s so fucking juvenile! It feels like something a 13 year old made up while trying to come up with the mos edgy, shocking, “sexy” thing he could. It just…doesn’t work. It doesn’t work firstly because it completely took away the whole “upper class veneer” that is as much an essential part of the HFC as the sex. In fact, I think more so. Writers, artists, and fans all like to focus on ZOMG THE SEXY COSTUMES but thematically speaking, I think the fact it’s an elite organization exclusive to the super-wealthy is much more important; that should be what they’re really about as villains, but writers end up focusing way too much on the shock value of the kink, and that’s how you wind up with stuff like this. The second reason it doesn’t work is that…it isn’t even shocking. When what they were doing was kept hidden, the reader could imagine no limit of decadence and depravity. When it’s revealed, and revealed as something that’s frankly super and common and TAME (seriously, strip clubs aren’t edgy these days) that you can get anywhere else, you’re left wondering why exactly anyone gives a shit about being in the HFC if this is all it really is? We should NEVER get to see what the HFC patrons truly do in private, and we should definitely never get shown that it’s just watching a woman pole dance with Victorian underwear on. That doesn’t make the HFC look sexual, it makes them look like PRUDES!Honestly, I do actually love the sexy sinful decadent aspect, but it’s overtaken the “extremely rich and powerful people trying to rule the world from behind the scenes through political and economic manipulation” aspect (which is far more interesting and villainous) that I kind of wish sometimes they had been created without the kink or colonial cosplay aspects, and instead had just worn some 80s powersuits.Now, here’s the “unpopular as in contradicts the popular” opinion. I see the Hellfire Club described a lot, in canon and fandom, as an organization of powerful MEN, as a bunch of MEN who just want to control others, as a BOY’S club…but aside from Sebastian Shaw, all the most prominent and effective members of the Club have been women? I mean, think about it. The names most synonymous with “Hellfire Club” in fandom are Emma Frost, Selene, Jean Grey as Dark Phoenix, and Sebastian Shaw. Shaw’s the ONLY dude that really gets any focus from writers OR fans; the women are almost always utilized more by writers and remembered more by fans. Heck, in the London Branch of the Hellfire Club, NONE of the male members of the Inner Circle even got NAMES, while ALL the women did. Now, of course, individual women in an organization being successful in said organization and beloved by fans/writers, doesn’t mean the organization itself can’t also be sexist. And like most people, the disparity between the costumes of both the Inner Circle and the mere staff does lead me to believe that it was probably founded and run only by men originally, and I bet women probably weren’t even allowed in for a long time (especially given that it was established in the 1700s) But that’s my HEADCANON. That’s what I EXTRAPOLATE. But what’s actually on the page IN THE PRESENT is women that are on equal footing with men, or superior to them. They’re not just simply ALLOWED in the Inner Circle, they’ve been dominating it from the first appearance with Emma ruling it alongside Shaw over Leland and Pierce, and then Selene coming in to challenge Shaw and Emma (with Shaw being terrified of her) in a way that none of the other members (all male—Leland, Pierce, Von Roehm) could. Gender is never brought up by anyone, even the most despicable male HFC members like Donald Pierce. So while I believe it was founded by sexist men, the Inner Circle seems pretty egalitarian now.But of course, there’s the costumes. I absolutely think it’s a sexist setup that the men get to wear (super ugly) period cosplay while the women are in fetish lingerie. It seems to be the standard uniform, and the fact that they haven’t CHANGED it shows that there’s definitely still some sexism.Except…it doesn’t seem to be a rule in-universe that the women HAVE to wear them? We actually see female members of the HFC, such as Selene, wearing clothing other than that while hanging out there; there’s actually a scene wear Selene is wearing pants and a sleeveless turtleneck with gloves. Maddy also wears a lot of black leather when she’s a member, but it doesn’t look like the Hellfire Club ladies getup, it looks like all the other stuff she was wearing in the 90s. And when Selene, Emma, etc., AREN’T in the Hellfire Club…they often still dress exactly like that, or in a similiar manner. I think it’s pretty clear that no one is MAKING them wear the uniforms, they just LIKE them, they’re probably “encouraged but optional” or something like that. And Emma even has that WHOLE DAMN SPEECH about how this is her armor, how it empowers her, etc. That said, while I don’t think any other CHARACTERS are making these women dress like that, I do think the writers/artists are. If a real woman made the speech that Emma did, I’d be like “ok sure, you go girl, do what feels empowering for you”. But Emma ISN’T a real woman. Every word in her mouth in that panel is being put there by Chris Claremont, a horny man with a dominatrix fetish who is trying to justify it by selling it as feminist. That is what it is. But just because that’s the case on a meta level…on an in-universe level, no one makes these women dress like this, and that’s very evident, and while the way they’re treated by writers/artists is definitely affected by them being women, the way other characters, including the Hellfire Club men, treats them, isn’t. At least not til shitty recent stuff. (I’ve seen some people think SHAW made the women dress like that….yeah, sure, like he could make SELENE do anything? He’s completely afraid of her but somehow can make her wear something she doesn’t want? Emma and Selene dress like that no matter where they are and whether they’re presently HFC members or not, but somehow he’s making them do that? HOW DOES ANYONE GIVE THIS GUY THAT MUCH CREDIT?)Basically, I think people are TRYING to be feminist, but it often ends up feeling like SEXISM to me? Because it’s totally ignoring and erasing the power and agency that these women exert in this organization, and often even claiming that it’s actually the men who have all the control, when aside from Shaw it’s usually the ladies running the show. It just seems disrespectful to me. It’s like, as much as people are claiming to hate a lack of agency for female characters, they seem more comfortable with that idea than a situation where women actually HAD it. Maybe it’s because they’re villains, maybe it’s because the costumes really are distracting and unequal no matter how the writers try to justify it (again, I wish they’d just gone with business suits), but there seems to be an overall fandom determination to insist on women like Emma Frost and Selene as victims or simply accomplices to a greater (male) villain, rather than embracing them as the Top Tier Bad Bitches they were/are, and, again, that seems more sexist to me than not. But I worry people will think I’m sexist if I say that. But you know me, you know I LOVE agency for female characters, and how I rail against it when see them ACTUALLY lacking it in comics, so you know it’s not that. I think it’s just a part of the rise in purity culture that even “progressive” people would rather see a woman forced or coerced to be a victim than choose of her own volition to be a villain and be GOOD at it :/🔥the difference between naive and unintelligent charactersWell, firstly, obviously there IS a difference. Naivete is just a lack of experience or learned knowledge, neither of which has anything to do with intelligence. A naive character may make mistakes in a new situation based on their lack of knowledge about it, and that may LOOK stupid to those who have this knowledge, but it’s not the same thing. I think we can agree that, say, Tony Stark isn’t stupid, but if he had to navigate in the wilderness, he might do things that experienced hikers and campers and outdoors people know are SUPER BAD IDEAS. Because this isn’t something he knows about or has experience with.So, I think considering characters who are new to this world (as is common in comics—lots of people from other dimensions, planets, and times) as stupid because they don’t know a lot of things we take as a given, is erroneous. I think it’s pretty common for fandom to look at, say, Longshot or Thor, and deem them as basically being idiots because they’re not familiar with their new environments…when in fact, we’d all be acting the same if we wound up in Asgard or Mojoworld. Not that there’s not other reasons they can’t be idiots, but not knowing what a toaster is isn’t one of them.The big difference is that naivete is a temporary state, and I think both writers and fans forget that. The character’s naivete will gradually decrease as they learn more and more. So if you’re writing an Avengers fic where Thor has been on Earth for five years so far, he probably knows what a toaster is, can order normally at a restaurant, isn’t confused by normal sights like cars or traffic lights or computers, etc., but could still be confused if he went to a Midgardian country with very different cultural norms than the ones he’s learned in the United States. Likewise, I can keep Malcolm perpetually baffled by new worlds in RP since time is kinda wobbly here and can be static or move forward or back as we like, but if I were writing him in a linear story, he would have to learn along the way about the technology and norms of other worlds as he experiences them; if he didn’t learn, THEN he would be unintelligent, not just naive. If he touches a hot stove once because he didn’t know what it was, and it burns him, that’s naive. If he touches it twice to test if it does the same thing again, that’s curious and maybe even smart, despite looking stupid to others. If he keeps doing it every day by accident, then THAT’S an idiot. Also, even a naive character may still be able to deduce that certain things are bad ideas, dangerous, etc. For instance, let’s say my character is a normal everyday girl sucked into a fantasy realm. She doesn’t understand the language, and the people around her don’t look like anything humanoid, but when all of them go quiet and still when a larger, more decorated one enters, and they all give it a lot of space, she can probably deduce that this is someone of great importance, and she probably should do what the others are doing and not risk pissing it off. She may know nothing about these beings or their customs, but she still can use her powers of observation and common sense. It may end up being a TOTALLY wrong move—for instance, maybe newcomers are meant to come introduce themselves to the leader by touching them–but it was a good, sensible guess. Whereas if she’d just walked up to the being and given it a good swift kick, that’d be unintelligent to an almost unbelievable point, and no amount of “she’s just naive!” could excuse it.Oh yeah, and optimism doesn’t automatically equate to naivete either. To be honest, I think that extreme cynicism is just as naive in its own way as thinking everything is sunshine and daisies, and I’d like to see this explored more in fiction rather than the perpetual “happy positive people are dumb and naive and just don’t know better, whereas the grumpy cynics are always smarter and more experienced” that media is so fond of.TL;DR Not only is naivete not unintelligence, it also should be a temporary state. It’s definitely cute to watch a naive character stumble around their new experiences, but in gaining those experiences, they’re going to become less naive, and make few mistakes. Naive characters should also still be capable of acting in ways that are sensible, even if they end up being wrong for the new situation. And being positive doesn’t automatically equate naivete either, nor does negativity equate to the reverse (and can be naive in itself)

[reconditarmonia]

Dear Rule 63 Author

(It’s finally happening! Thank you so much for signing up!)

I’m reconditarmonia here and on AO3 (and have been since LJ days, but my LJ is locked down and I only have a DW to see locked things). I have anon messaging off, but, er, I can answer any questions you might have about my requests in my mod capacity if you contact the exchange email ;)

Fullmetal Alchemist | History Boys | Pride and Prejudice | Robin Hood | Spinning Silver

General likes:

– Relationships that aren’t built on romance or attraction. They can be romantic or sexual as well, but my favorite ships are all ones where it would still be interesting or compelling if the romantic component never materialized.

– Loyalty kink! Trust, affectionate or loving use of titles, gestures of loyalty, replacing one's situational or ethical judgment with someone else's, risking oneself (physically or otherwise) for someone else, not doing so on their orders. Can be commander-subordinate or comrades-in-arms.

– Heists, or other stories where there’s a lot of planning and then we see how the plan goes.

– Femslash, complicated or intense relationships between women, and female-centric gen. Women doing “male” stuff (possibly while crossdressing).

– Stories whose emotional climax or resolution isn’t the sex scene, if there is one.

– Uniforms/costumes/clothing.

– Stories, history, and performance. What gets told and how, what doesn’t get told or written down, behavior in a society where everyone’s consuming media and aware of its tropes, how people create their personas and script their own lines.

General DNW: rape/dubcon, torture, other creative gore; unrequested AUs, including “same setting, different rules” AUs such as soulmates/soulbonds; PWP; food sex; embarrassment; focus on pregnancy; Christmas/Christian themes; focus on unrequested canon or non-canon ships.

A note: I'm generally fine with "/" ships where the fic doesn't contain a kiss, overt declaration of love, etc. I'll trust that you wrote it with shippy intent and don't expect you to force in something that wouldn't fit the story.

About Rule 63 Exchange specifically: I have no strong preference for character names, with a slight preference for sticking with their canon names; it's up to you whether you want to justify any resulting names that would be unusual for women or just gloss over it. As far as characters' personalities and gender expression are concerned, you can tell from my requests that part of what interests me in most of the characters I requested is the question of what they and/or their relationships would be like in a world where they grew up as women, but I tend to want to see them as similar to their canon selves, just female. I'm probably fine with unrequested characters also being swapped to female, but feel free to check if you're not sure; please don't swap any female characters to male.

For this exchange, I've requested only fanfiction and only Always a 63, and with the exception of FMA, have requested non-smut (for FMA both smut and non-smut are good).

—

Fandom: Fullmetal Alchemist

Ship(s): F!Roy Mustang/Riza Hawkeye, F!Roy Mustang/F!Maes Hughes, F!Roy Mustang & Riza Hawkeye & F!Maes Hughes, F!Roy Mustang & F!Maes Hughes

I only recently started watching FMA:Brotherhood and I love it a lot. My fannish interests run towards military contexts, loyalty kink, idealistic/noble characters, and ambitious/pragmatic characters, so I'd love to read more about any of these combinations of people trusting one another to be the best person to do the job, or to know what to do, and risking a lot on that - whether that's on campaign in the war, when trying to get Roy up the chain of command, during the conflict with the homunculi... (I'm not yet up to the bit where Roy tells Riza he trusts her to shoot him in the back if he steps off the path, but it's been mentioned to me and it is my JAM.)

(My requests are fairly unspecific because as I write this I'm only about a quarter of the way through the anime. DO NOT worry about avoiding spoilers in the fic; I'm getting through the canon and can't wait to read whatever you want to write. Although I should specifically say, feel free to either have Hughes continue to be alive or stick to canon in this regard.)

Smut Likes: clothing, sexual tension, breasts, oral sex, grinding, informal d/s elements, intensity

Fandom-Specific DNW: please avoid canon-typical loss of body parts. If writing Roy/Maes in a period when Maes would canonically be married to Gracia, please don’t kill her off or get into either infidelity angst or poly negotiation; an AU where they never married or the assumption of an open relationship are both fine.

—

Fandom: History Boys

Ship(s): F!Stuart Dakin/F!Tom Irwin, F!Entire Class & F!Tom Irwin, F!Entire Class & F!Douglas Hector

I'm dying to know what the cultural touchstones would be if this plot were about lesbians instead of gay men. Auden, for instance, keeps coming up in the play - Hector loves him, Dakin and the other students bring him up to feel out Irwin - Housman, Bette Davis in Now Voyager...so what's acceptable and/or eccentric Culture for lesbians to cling to, or to signal (or flirt, or come-on) with? Who are the writers and the icons? During canon(/pre-, if applicable with Hector) or post-canon Oxbridge-slash-TV-historian life, it's all great. I, like most of the fandom, do like the idea that Dakin and Irwin do make it work at some point, post-canon.

Although I acknowledge that female versions of these characters feeling shut out of the historical and literary Canon is a valid place to go with the concept (I mean, that's Mrs. Lintott's speech), I'm more interested in following through on the way that the canon (little-c) characters relate historical or literary figures and events to their own lives - whether that's using more female figures, or finding things to seize on and relate to in the male figures of the Canon (in a fuck-you women-are-like-this-too way or a gay way rather than a Great-Men-are-universally-relatable way, I suppose).

—

Fandom: Pride and Prejudice

Ship(s): Elizabeth Bennet/F!Fitzwilliam Darcy, Jane Bennet/F!Charles Bingley

I would love to see how the basic narrative of P&P, or scenes from it, could play out, with period setting and some level of period attitudes, if either (or both) of the two main men are women looking for a "companion" or being pursued as a "companion," rather than as a husband. (Yes, I've been watching Gentleman Jack, but I've wanted this sort of thing for longer than that.)

To be clear, period attitudes can be "meh" rather than wall-to-wall homophobia; I'd just prefer to explore the implications of this change rather than supposing that same-sex marriage is accepted and everything about the plot is the same. If Jane, the eldest daughter to marry off, isn't interested in a heterosexual marriage? If Elizabeth turns down Collins without any expectation that a more suitable man could exist? (Having characters be bi rather than lesbian works too, I'm just throwing out some examples.) The significance of dancing, when in a formal dance context you'd encounter another woman in the dance but wouldn't be able to have her as a partner? Jane and Bingley being adorable, or Elizabeth and Darcy coming to revise their initial ill opinions of each other in this new context? Are the men a hot ticket for the women of Hertfordshire in the same way if they're women instead?

—

Fandom: Robin Hood (Traditional)

Ship(s): F!Robin Hood/F!Little John, F!Robin Hood & F!Merry Men, F!Robin Hood & Merry Men, F!Robin Hood & F!Little John, F!Robin Hood & Little John

Tell me about these people! A female outlaw commanding the loyalty of a mixed or male group -- or an all-female group of outlaws, how they live, what might have led them to choose that life. I'm also here for Robin Hood's relationship with her right-hand man/woman specifically, because I love loyalty kink -- people willing to go into danger for one another, the leader knowing how best to use her right hand's skills and strengths, what elements of formality might appear in, well, a very ad-hoc group. (And f!Little John would probably be hot.) If you're writing the Little John pairings, feel free to make the Merry Men either their canon versions or female versions.

I'd totally be into any of the f!characters crossdressing as men vis-à-vis the world at large, although if you go this route I'd rather have them not be in disguise to each other/to their own allies (so no Merry Men thinking they're being led by another man when it's crossdressing Robin, for instance - preferring masculine clothing/appearance even among friends is fine, though).

—

Fandom: Spinning Silver

Ship(s): F!Staryk Lord/Miryem Mandelstam

I love Miryem, and I'm so interested in the ways that making the Staryk Lord a woman would change Miryem's entry into the Staryk world and the romance that eventually develops between them. Maybe same-sex marriage is common among the Staryk, and that's one of the customs that are new and unfamiliar to Miryem in this new world. Would this be a Miryem who had never imagined being attracted to a woman before but comes to fall for the Staryk Lady, or one who simply couldn't have imagined being able to marry one and have that be a normal life? (For values of "normal" that include ice lands and gold magic!) How does the fact of the marriage being same-sex affect Miryem's initial understanding of it as a business arrangement, or for that matter, affect her understanding of the offer of queenship as a marriage at all? What makes them fall for each other?

Canon Miryem wonders what her role as queen is, thinking that she'd know about managing a household and having children and sewing if she were married to a human lord - is it the same if she has a fairy wife instead of a fairy husband, more so because there's not even the hope of a gendered complementarian aspect to fall back on, less so because the Staryk Lady is there as an example of what a female monarch in the Staryk lands does? Does Miryem try to be more like her, or to find her own accounting-powers-and-personal-bonds niche?

It's so important to canon Miryem to have a Jewish wedding with the Staryk Lord - what would that look like here? What happens when she comes back to the human world not only the queen of a magic country, but married to a woman (and in love with her, depending on when you set it)?

[solarianradiance]

Black Romance

The Black Quadrant of Troll Romance intrigues me to no end, and makes my thoughts churn like a creative slurry in a bucket, wandering what exactly its like under long term circumstances, the little intricacies of unwritten rules and expectations to be found within this sort of relationship.

How did it even first occur? What in Troll biology cause it to be a such a strong fixture in their social culture?

Perhaps these questions will be answered one day... probably in a way that makes me wish they hadn't and force me to moan like a lil bitch in disappointment.

We can only speculate for now however... which is what im going to do.

In its history, Black Romance likely started as a genuine desire to kill a rival, likely over the feelings of the same Matesprite, but unable to do so, in spite of the genuinely serious trying at mutual murder, only to find they dont mind each other so much, even if they dont like many other aspects about them~

 Even though they try to kill their rival they actually begin to make one another as strong as possible through constant conflict. Like two Knights sharpening their skills in a friendly sparing match. After all, what doesn't kill you, makes you stronger. Given Troll society, they likely take this notion to heart.

Through this rivalry, their partner is made as strong as possible, so they may live to see each other again another day.

I think, in my opinion, a Black Romance is a relationship born of Hate and Irritation, but evolves into a genuine mutual love and respect.

It starts as Hate, but becomes Love over time.

They may start in opposite directions, but they ultimately end up in the same place.

Any actual pain inflicted upon your rival is to make them dulled and numb to that pain. Makes them ready to deal with it mentally. Their weak traits being absolved or mitigated to some extent, and their strengths expanded and reinforced.

The individuals, sharpen each others knives for their partners to use one another, so that they may also sharpen their skills, ensuring that they are both full prepared for the trials ahead.

A Black Romance usually revolves around the two partners actually trying to hurt and injure one another, both verbally and physically, but not cripple, maim or kill their opponent. Its the two trying to Dominate, but not so thoroughly as they cannot grow as individuals. To remove the blemishes in their techniques, working out the kinks in execution.

Blackroms must have times of bonding and enjoyment, a break from the conflict, to relieve stress... by ♠any♠means♠necessary♠~

This often revolves around the two Haters tending to eachothers wounds, and enjoying the typical Red Romance activities, like dinner and a movie, albeit with a side of snark, super sized. Probably poisoning their partners meal, just enough for them to get an upset stomach and vomit over it all.

Signs of affection take the forms of hand holding, kissing, and small levels of antagonisms such as harmless insults or mild scuffles. One method is manipulation to encourage romantic retaliations, such as stealing clothes, pranking their rival, or even publicly humiliating them in way that will embarrass them but wont destroy their standing or self-esteem.

Anything that gets under their skin without causing permanent harm goes and one must always be on guard and never show signs of weakness or reveal any information to their kismesis, lest they use this against their partner.

One sign of devotion in a relationship is wearing the colors of your partner. In the case of a Matesprit, its their favorite color.

In the case of a Kismesis, its their blood color, or at least a color they may hate.

All relationships are born of trust, but for a Kismesissitude, it is far more important, for they must both understand they are not trying to kill eachother while trying to wound one another. 

A good sign of trust is allowing your Kismesis to wear your clothes with minimal reservation, as they probably wont destroy it outright, but probably will at least modify it, such as dying it another color.

This trust is what is crucial for it to succeed, they have to try and hurt without killing. And due to nature of the relationship, they try to one up each other constantly.

Stabbing someone in the arm may result in them cutting off your hand in response.

This often results in the one of them killing their partner kind of unintentionally while being caught up in a whirlwind of passionate hatred~

Sometimes in bed even.

These bouts of hate filled fighting can spill over into society at large, causing damage and injury to others and their property.

This is why the Auspices were founded~

The importance of the Auspice in a Black Romance is critical, for they serve as the referees, and prevent the relationship from getting out of hand. The loss of one or both individuals can be devastating to the group, especially if they’re of great standing and use to said group. Losing your own members to themselves is embarrassing to say the least.

They at minimum, keep the two individuals focused, preventing them from getting embroiled in their bitter dark chocolate freakishness, and having them stay civil as well as decent in public.

Anyone can be an Auspice, be they a passing stranger, or a concerned friend. But many Auspices are more permanent fixtures, usually one party members current Moirail or Matesprite.

But most often, it is normally a third party that is a mutual friend, that aides in keeping things from getting out of hand. A platonic friend that can help cool the flames and calm the storms, so the ship will not sink.

But Not All Ashenroms Are Platonic~

Some Are Polyamourous Relationships Where The individuals Engage in Mutually Consenting Frivolity In Their Own Various Ways, Be They ♥Flushed♣Or♣Pitched♠ And Can Vary On The Individuals Involved, Creating A Sort Of Menagerie Of Earthly Delights, One Could Compare To A Candy Store With A Wide Variety Of Sugary Treats To Suit Every Taste~~~

Which Makes Such Relationships Quite Appealing To Most People~

However, there are times when someone is Auspicing for their own selfish desires. Attempts may be done by the Auspice to change the nature of the relationship, and pull an individual into another Quadrant.

This is why they are known to be “Meddlers”, and prolonged Ashroms are rare, especially when they dont make it to the bedroom.

When they do make it in, its normally so the two individuals can pail and the 3rd party ensures they dont kill one another and nothing more. Once completed, the relationship may continue or end.

If an Auspice doesn't know what they are doing, they may be unable to keep up and be ineffective, or even make the situation worse.

But in the case that an Auspice does succeed, and pays their cards right, everyone can have a grand old time together, creating a rare instance where more than two individuals has a well balanced Romance with variety.

Black Romance often ends in two rivals breaking apart, either they cant handle the stress or one of them dies, usually at the hands of their partner. Or one of them simply gets bored, and doesn't feel fulfilled like they once were.

A Black Romance is after all, based in enthusiastic engagement, and it is not unusual for the relationship to end in mutual separation.

But there are times when one side loses the romantic aspect, and the hate turns true and genuine, and kills their partner on purpose.

There are even instances of cruel situations where one partner is manipulating their other for dark machinations.

Machinations that are Darker than Black

Abuse does often occur, but a proper Pitched relationship has consent, subtext and subtle hints giving expressing desires, and when fulfilled, there is aftercare, wounds are dressed, and reminders that there is affection. Should a deed go too far, a boundary overstepped, a true Kismesis will in one way or another, express regret and remorse over a transgression.

Transgression may include overly controlling behavior, emotionally isolating them, direct harm with intent to cripple or kill, engaging in a relationship with your Kismesis’s actual enemies who want to kill them, destroying what is valued and cant be replaced and manipulating them for personal gains at their permanent expense, especially when they cant afford it.

A Kismesis cares for their partners feelings and well being, and a good one goes out of their way to ensure they are secure and safe, even when having fun.

An abuser does not.

But then there are the very rare instances, where Kismesissitude is so strong and so stable and healthy between partners, that they seemingly end up in the same place as a end of a Flushed romance.

A truly loving rivalry, whose only goal in it, is the joy of having it.

When it happens, its like Black Magic.

The two seem to engage in bantering and mutual antagonism, yet its clear they’re enjoying each other in the act. Vacillating between Red, Black and Pale all within moments.

Should a Black Romantic Couple reach this level, they stay together simply because they love being together.

Marriage exists within Troll society, though it is rare, especially when its outside ones blood caste.

Black Marriages are particularly rare, as the process of getting Hate Married is rather intense.

A proposal involves biting off eachothers right ring finger and swallowing it. Which is pretty hardcore if you ask me.

Which turned out to be too hardcore, which was phased out for simply biting a wound into their partners finger instead

Which was also phased out as it was a custom from a time before oral hygiene was a thing, people died due to infection.

Afterwords it became a case of merely scaring, then branding, then finally tattooing in your fiance’s sign in their blood color on your right ring finger.

A simple wedding ring is also acceptable, usually some cheap metal, like a Black iron ring.

Finally, the two tell each other a special secret about one another, usually something quite humiliating, as a means of making blackmail, so that either one wants to declare a divorce, they simply air their others dirty laundry.

[sigurdjarlson]

-clears throat- i got up on my soap box again. It’s just me bitching about self righteous assholes in fandom (tw: abuse, rape, other triggering issues) 

honestly at this point i’ve been in fandoms so long i legit dont give a fuck what other people ship. if i don’t like it i ignore it. if it makes me uncomfortable i take measures to avoid it. i don’t message people and tell them to go kill themselves over fictional characters. please get professional help if you do

nor is it my responsibility to cater to you if you blatantly choose to look at things that upset you. I’m not your mother. You have to take responsibility for your own internet experience. 

I read a fic that fucked with my head the other day. I didn’t know it would but it did. It put me in a bad headspace. It reminded me of some traumatic shit. Did I go ham on the creator because how dare they write something that upset me? Nah. It’s not their fault. They had all the proper trigger warnings in place. It just happened to hit a sore spot with me because of my own personal experiences which I recognize are very different from everyone else’s. 

sigh

the older i get the less i care because i realize it really does not matter what people like in fiction. Some of the best, kindest people I’ve met on this website ship horrifying ships, have some fucked up kinks or enjoy problematic characters. And some of the worst people I’ve met only ship ~pure ships~ and only love ~pure cinnamon rolls uwu~ or whatever. 

It’s fiction. It has no reflection on what someone is like as a person. How you treat other people however DOES. 

I could go on about how people use “discourse” as an excuse to bully people they disagree with but honestly a lot of people have said it much more eloquently than I. 

Just..tag your shit so people can avoid it (especially content like non-con and such). Be kind to each other. Take responsibility for your own internet experience. Create your own safe space because no one can do that for you. Nor should they have to. 

Fandom becomes a lot more fun when you do those things. And that’’s what it’s supposed to be. FUN.

just because someone wants to get fucked by a tentacle monster in fiction doesn’t mean they’re going to shove an octopus up their asshole.

ALSO if you think people have to tell you about their traumatic experience to justify shipping or enjoying something...you can go right to hell. You don’t care about survivors because if you did you wouldn’’t force them to reveal very personal info about themselves to avoid being harassed and bullied. You’re using survivors to further your bullshit moral crusade that makes you feel better about yourself and I want no part in it. 

Also you don’t speak for all survivors even if you are one yourself. I’m one myself and I don’t speak for all survivors. 

My personal opinion? You don’t need to be a survivor to be allowed to enjoy problematic things. It’s fiction. God damn. 

It reminds me of fatphobes try to claim they care about a person’s health when in reality they’re just using they facade of concern as an excuse to bully and abuse people they don’t like. 

Someone’s trauma is none of your business. what they enjoy is none of your business. 

If someone goes and does something they read about in fan fic they already had serious problems to begin with. 

Also frankly the belief that fiction causes people to do bad things actually takes the responsibility off the person. “Fiction with abusive relationships makes people abusive” no...abusive people make the choice to abuse other people. Don’t you dare take the responsibility off of them. I want none of that.

Abuse, rape, sexual abuse, murder, etc are all CHOICES people make. A fanfic they read once didn’t turn them into a monster. They already were one. This was already a desire they had.

And yes people can enjoy bad things in fiction and not want to do those things in real life. They can be and often are disgusted by those things in real life. They have a healthy distinction between fiction and reality. 

Also frankly I’m insulted by the idea that I’m going to think something is okay cuz I read a fic about it. “People will think it’s okay to be abused” woah woah wait? First you take the responsibility away from the abusers..and then you blame the victim. what you’re really saying is t’s ultimately their fault because they didn’t understand it was abuse? Many abuse victims don’t know it was abuse at first. That does not make it their fault.and it has nothing to do with that fic they read 5 years ago. 

Go on and on about how fiction reinforces social norms..I could argue it doesn’t and its more of a lens in which we can see problems that are already there.

Rape culture is rampant in fiction? It it because it is in society. The fiction did not cause rape culture. “It normalizes it.” it’s already normalized and frankly yes be critical of it but I’d advise you to focus and target the root of the problem instead of the symptoms. 

People exploring these themes and being fully aware these things aren’t acceptable in real life are not the problem. People who believe those things are okay are the problem

also

Real people are more important than fictional ones.

If anti’s put half the energy they put into harassing people on the internet into actually helping the real people they claim to care about they could do a lot of good. But whatever keep on jacking off to your belief you’re morally superior because you don’t ship reyl0 or whatever ship is the target of anti’s now days.

Which goes to show it is not about the issues they claim it’s about. It’s not about abuse apologism or rape apologism. It’s about some very sad, pathetic individual using important issues to stroke their ego and make themselves appear to be the most visibly enlightened or whatever. It’s about the people that pat them on the back and tell them they’re great! They’re good for doing this!! It’s all about ego. 

Sure some people might simply be misguided and have good intentions. Maybe they really believe they’re rooting out the fandom boogyman or whatever. But the real anti’s? They don’t give a flying fuck about survivors. 

So yeah I don’t give a shit what you get off too. I don’t give a shit what you ship. I might not like it but that’s my personal preference and it means nothing beyond that.  

Fan fiction has very little effect on society as a whole anyway. Maybe try focusing on media that actually does? Like television or big blockbuster films? 

Honestly fanfic is actually arguably more aware than any other form of media. With some exceptions..there are proper trigger warnings in place. People freely say “yeah this is terrible and i would never condone it in real life” and that already makes it far less harmful than something like 50 shades of grey. 

However I know I’m tired of having to repeat that disclaimer over and over again. It’s so annoying. It should be a give in. Stop assuming that because someone likes something they would support it in real life.

I want to see Negan and Rick fuck. Am I beating people in the head with a baseball bat? No. Do I think they kind of behavior is acceptable? Fuck no. Do I find the dynamic interesting? Yes. Hot even? Yeah because it’s fictional and it is perfectly okay to explore dark themes in fiction. Would I feel that way if I saw a dynamic like that in real life? Hell no. You best believe I’m going to be disgusted and contact the proper authorities. 

There is a huge difference between fiction and reality. Something anti’s don’t seem to understand. It would just be annoying if it wasn’t so harmful. When you start telling people to kill themselves, trying to ruin their lives with faux accusations, whatever. You become a horrible person. You become that terrible person you say you’re protecting everyone from. 

Just...enjoy what you enjoy. Tag your shit so people can avoid it. Block what you don’t like and have fun for fuck’s sake. Respect and be kind to one another. Take all that moral righteousness and channel it into something that actually helps people instead of actively harming them. 

Someone writing about something that upsets you, unless sent directly to you, is not a personal attack. People don’t have to stop writing about something just because you don’t like it. Different strokes for different folks and all that. Everyone has had different experiences in life and are effected by things differently. 

[unsubstantiatedopinion]

Thinking about when I got my IUD. On the information trail of something else, saw a Quiz on a teen health site of which birth control is for you.

I had to work to get the answer I actually Use. Mind, the major change was "I am willing to go to a doc" and then it followed with the legit "I'm cool w my period getting heavier".

Mine started, and has settled back into being fairly light flow, long lasting, and like one day of cramps that are pretty easily managed.

But this quiz when I answers everything else,(thr first time, no clinic) offered me the Sponge on my list. Like yeah yeah condoms at the top of the list.

In 2016 on campus they were stocking both in the dorm bathrooms, external were more popular by a lot. But if you looked up success rates on Planned Parenthood, external had a higher efficacy rating. I figured that it was probably user error, but like, What? Then at a student health fair, I did ask the people at a sexual health table if they knew this, and if they knew why and they didn't. Though they also thought it was probably a familiarity w the device thing.

My sex Ed classes in 8th grade and HS did have us learn how to put a condom on a penis. (My 8th grade was taught by a lesbian and some outside person was brought in for part as well, but we did learn how to make a dam out of a condom as well. Didn't realize that was unusual knowledge.)

On the one hand, the external condom is the one birth control where the expectation is on the man to be dealing with it. And it has the wonderful qualities of being a in the moment sort of thing, very sweeping passionate much flirty. (And while *I* have never successfully done a seductive foreplay with a condom, there's some solid visual potential there.) And it is effective, one of the few things that is both birth control and STI control.

All that is wonderful.

The internal condom, by contrast, is a newer thing. So it hasn't come into the visual lexicon of "seeing this in the bedroom is normal". And tbh, popping it into place is harder to make into a teasing sensous thing. But i think there's more to it than that.

Unlike the other internal birth control methods. Even than the ring or what are some of those retro ones, sponge or diagphram. Once they are in place, they aren't Seen.

Most of the objects that are placed internally have a reputation of being for wives. Partially bc they are less effective(and the stakes of a pregnancy for a married woman are lower.) partially I think bc they are seen to 'break the mood', which you can get away with when you've seen intimately into the other's life, but when you are still in the dating sexy mystique phase culturally you aren't 'supposed to" do.

Which is also Bad.

If you do not feel like you could say to the other person, hey, can we pause or stop this? Don't fuck them.

But the modern methods of birth control, are mainly chemical (and not good vs STI) but their burden is entirely in the woman. Financially, emotionally, physically.

The optimistic version is that, this is women taking control of their bodies and lives.

But, 1. At what cost? And

2. So invisibly.

The unpopularity of the internal condom to me seems like a stroking of a man's ego. And falling into old hetero scripts.

Which is why I am using man and woman mainly here. Lesbians have less use for condoms generally (toys are washable, and gloves are better for hands). The accessabiltiy and flexibility of external condoms, makes them prefered for gay men. Sure the inner ring of an internal condom can be removed for anal sex, butt that is only one of many sex acts avalible to men outside of fanfiction.

But the Straight(tm) script has man pursue woman be innocent. And if she's not innocent, play innocent; otherwise this isn't a date on the good girls path to wedding. Basically if the woman is shown to be experienced it is mark against her, or specifically for the man's enjoyment. (See history of sex work, succubi as a concept, kink, and/or MILFs).

The pill, and even nexplenon or and IUD, are hidden. Sure they are pre-planned taking ones own reigns, but they aren't visible where the action is. (And the pill is way more popular anyhow, and has plausible deniability-its not cause I'm a slut it's for my cramps. Which is a legit use, but is not the Only reason it should be allowed). They also have that 'ready and avalible at any time' quality. Which, could be - unkindly- seen as making The Sex ready for the picking at any time.

By contrast, the internal condom can be a statment, it's a statment that at some point the woman said to herself, "I plan on getting Laid tonight". Probably when getting dressed and choosing a matching set of underwear. But unlike coordinated sets, its something that really is for her, and her protection. (Yes it's possible she is carrying an infection and doesn't want to pass it along.)

It's incredibly loud and enthusiastic consent.

Which, is not the Straight(tm) prefered narritive.

Obviously, it is the Best version of events. But consent is a whole other post.

The main reason I don't go for it myself, besides Covid, is the they are harder to find, more expensive and so it feels more like a waste of money if you don't fuck. And I haven't gone on many dinner dates that might lead to a rendezvous. And wouldn't want that nagging push. (on the other hand, totally see how this pressure is bad on men in Straight(tm) narritive. There lots of transaction happening in any relationship and we really don't think actively enough about it's influence as a culture).

In personal experience, the #1 reason I didn't want hormonal birth control was lack of research on its physical effects beyond not getting knocked up. The "it's not unusual for this to increase depression but also we are just now half a century later actually looking into this". Plus personally the arm stick was a bad fit with my dislike of needles and my need to pick at things. And there was no time of day in college where I would be able to reliably choose to take a pill. Probably 11am but then I'd need to remember to pack it with me and just, I wasn't here for that life.

Which is where we get to the IUD.

The scene, 2016. The context, I had had a condom break (intercrural, which I STRONGLY recommend) but it freaked the fellow out a bit. (He did not suggest an iud, and tbh I don't think I involved him in the decision at all. ) The other context was the 2016 election. And frankly, the Fear that was being drummed up. Not unwarranted, but, there was a spike in IUDs at that time bc people were worried about loosing access to other forms of birth control. And I doubt I was alone in worrying about loosing options in the event of a rape.

I am against abortion as a method of bieth control. But I think the way to not have abortions, is prevention. Abortions that remove a dead fetus or a dieing fetus that are protecting the mother, aren't birth control, that's sepsis management and tragic. Abortions that are only for the girl babies, are birth control and tbh the way to cut down on that animation is cultural change. It's my opinion that if a woman is going in for an abortion, something has Failed Her.

But, I was at a point where my getting pregnant would be really bad. My mental health was in a sketchy place. I was in school. And frankly not terribly employable since a science degree at a bachelor's is still all grunt work.

I looked into what options were avalible. I researched. My mother had, at some point offered to assist in getting a prescription for the pill, framed in the cramps story. Which for my sister IS why she's on it. I lucked out on not having a Catastrophe of a uterus. (Hyperbole but still).

I remember the process of going in.

I remember being Angry that in the pre-appoinment I was told that the policy was you need to get a pregnancy test up to like 2 days before or so. And I set it up so that I have a block to squeeze in this extra appointment on like the day before. I look up what to do before hand, PP recommend taking a painkiller before showing up so it has time to kick in.

I do all the steps. I go in alone. For myself, I don't want non-experts besides me involved. These are things between me, a doctor, and god and/or my/a/my understanding of amoral system.

The secretary was friendly and like, yeah Doc is doing a lot of these. Reassuring. They didn't give me any preprocedure instructions besides this test (and it was also a STI test I don't remember if that was required or I was like heck if I'm here might as well).

But the appointment happens and three plot twists. 1. They've got a better painkiller and would have preferred I hadn't taken an over the counter before. But it all worked out. And frankly the insertion was absolutely fine. Like yeah little pinch but as u recall it it was more like if you pinched a like big chunk of thigh than like finger in a door.

2. There was a med student/intern/person. I was asked if she could be in the room. Not shocking, University hospital is a teaching hospital and I'm totally chill with being a model. She seemed uncomfortable, wanted to go into pediatrics so not really relevant to her I think. Nothing hands on.

3. The thing that made me mad was that I had to take an additional pregnancy test before she would do the procedure. I took the previous test when the intake had suggested. At the same hospital. So it's all their records. And I hadn't had sex in the interim and even if I had, nothing would have had time to implant. Plus, while I recognize that technically IUD can in a few cases be an aborting procedure, by getting a copper iud, I was saying I plan on not having kids for up to the next 10 years. Thinking back on it, maaaaaayyyyybe maybe a test might have seen a pregnancy that might have been floating around to go etopic and all. But no, this felt controlling and paternalistic.

I didn't have a strategy for dealing with it. For demanding and asserting that I just did this. I did say it once, but that wasn't listened to.

And I know that this isn't an unusual or even particularly egregious example. But still.

After was lots of bleeding. I think I basically bled in some capacity for a month or two. Was on painkillers for long enough that i did get some like stomach pain or maybe just worried docs I don't remember except being told to switch to acetominiphine which I don't think works as well for me but resolved whatever the issue was. And I'm a pads person and did get a bit chapped.

After that resolved. I did have one terrifying Surprise Heavy period like a few months later. I bled through a pad. There was crying in the CVS bc there wasn't a absorbtion conversion between tampons and pads and this was all new and scary.

The next month leveled out. Though things were still heavier than pre-iud or now. But not terrible. And I've seen worse. I couldnt use my mom's strategy of the diva cup, which she got on early I think bc it's Wonderful for HEAVY flow. But between never having had success w a tampon and the potential suction removing the thing and ripping out an IUD. Not worth it.

But for the most part it settled out.

But I still think about it.

The good thing was the RELIEF of the Safety of not having to worry about ending up pregnant. Sure STIs are a risk. But back-alley or date rape transference is likely either way and at least I only have to deal with one issue instead if the moralized one. And in chosen partners, frankly they were either rather virginal. Or Defs gonna use a condom. Like, the bf in the IUD times, we still used a condom each time. (I don't know that he's done it, but he had also apperently been planning on getting a vasectomy asap, since like highschool.) The 'i never want kids' was one of the reasons we stopped dating. There were a few other reasons but like they all boiled down to 'want differnt things from the Future' which is why we are friends still.

But things will come up, and I'll remember, I've got a chunk of copper in me.

That knowledge weighs in my consideration of sense of self, and self identity. It feels representative, and significant.

I don't check for the strings as often as I should, and I think they've mostly stayed out of the way.

But this is a significant thing to me.

And a thing that I keep to myself a lot.

But I do Want to talk about it, because it is so Significant.

[kindabraveandlittlestupid]

Another reflective post (I suppose they all technically are) that I wanted to touch base with my evolution of sexual orientation and my journey to where I am and how/why I feel the way I do about my personal orientation. While normally I would follow up with the disclaimer of this being my opinion and it should be observed as much, I feel less compelled to do so in regards to how I view my personal sexuality. Some people are hardline gay or straight which if that's you, well then that's you I have no prerogative to try and curb your orientation. I, however, observe/believe in the spectrum of sexuality and find myself deviating from the label of absolute straight. Have a read and let me know what you think if you have something respectful to say or ask by all means.

Tested I like so many young men have had a strange go at defining sexuality and my overall orientation. There are various stigmas to exploring one's sexuality be it judgment from your peers, fear of looking foolish for asking questions or expressing feelings, societies views on masculinity, pressures from religion and other institutions. Despite how we work to remove these barriers in modern society, there seems to be an army of people looking to build up those walls. They want clean neat little boxes of what it means to be male or female and who you should be finding love with even though it defies your feelings and desires. Even now I find myself using this anonymous style blog to post my feelings on orientation but still afraid to broach the subject with my male friends. I am clearly getting off on a tangent...

The first aspect I wanted to touch base on was testing my sexual limits. The internet has provided a wonderful playground of exploring the various kinks that turn me on and allowing me to look at various sorts of porn to see what excites me (I hope Google doesn't have a long record of my browser history). In my adventures, I came across gay/bisexual porn where men were fucking men. Its something that comes across various adult Tumblrs I follow but its certainly nothing I seek out. The first sort of test helped me realize three things about myself.

I learned I am certainly not gay. The male and male stuff simply doesn’t elicit the same tingle I get from two women having sex or generally the female body plucking my primal urges.

It's opened my social narrative on what is considered attractive for men. I find myself being able to ‘check out’ other men not for myself but with my partner to see what turns her on. If I were younger I would have said “I don't check out dudes” but now I find myself able to say if I think they are handsome or not without judgment.

The last thing I learned is that when I see gay porn the thing that pops into my mind most is the fact I need to go to the gym more. While I am fit but some of those guys are cut and it simply makes me want to go for a run or cut back on my carbs.

Experimenting So we discovered that I really don’t have a personal attraction for the male body while testing my boundaries on the web. A place where I do deviate from my ‘straightness’ is my willingness to explore in the bedroom with a girl. Not sure what specifically entail but I can’t be asking to share in my deviant kinky desire but be so rigid and reject anything she might suggest (That's not the sort of equity I like to practice in the bedroom). This comes more to a partner's desires clearly and I am not seeking any sort of strap-on play myself but if that is something she wants to try, I suppose I can agree to try it out.

Teaming Up Another aspect that deviates from my straightness is my willingness to ‘team up’ with another guy for a kinky session. Socially known as the Devil’s Threesome which one girl enjoys the company of two males, I see no way I can justify my own threesome desires of two (or more) girls without being open to providing that same scenario for my partner. It should be noted that this epic team up is like two superheroes working together to defeat that insatiable libido of the woman between us. About as much as I want from the other guy is a high five, fist bump or strategizing and not much else.

Transexual? Kind of a what if and clarifying question about my feelings on transsexuality. Would I ever date/fuck/marry a woman who was born biologically male? In the past like most answers, I was more tightly tied to the concept of biological gender and masculinity but as I matured I have shifted away from a hard no to the realm of “eh maybe”. I suppose there is an unfair pressure to expect and want a trans woman to share her history with me in the early moments of our relationship but it is equally wrong to hide that from a partner. I like to believe by being honest about it early should oblige a ‘fair shake’ to see if there is chemistry between us but its impossible to know how I might truly feel until I am in that situation. So I leave this as a tentative answer but if she is my soul mate and really connects with me, I see no reason to reject her.

Conclusion You can see why now I subscribe to the Straight (Incidental Qualities) label were seeing another dick in the same space as my own won't have me running from the room or twitching with excitement. I am certainly open to working with other guys in the bedroom, happy to explore toys with a female companion, open to the idea of dating trans women if we click (won't lie there is some mental barriers to overcome there) and various kinks the revolve around these things. I am not a fan of our sexually repressed culture as I feel that pressure on me sometimes even among people I know, trust and love but it feels inescapable sometimes. It feels good to share even though there is no epic revelation to have from this post but at least you know where I am personally. Thanks for the read.

Regards Michael California