#it doesn't have to be a 100% true either

[tessasilverswan]

Fresh Out the Slammer/Cardigan

Second ref to the folklore love triangle? (first being August/imgonnagetyouback here)

[poorly-drawn-mdzs]

Been thinking about the X-Files recently. A show I have a hazy, but fond memory of.

[c6jpg]

mixed feelings because on one hand damn the mad lads did it on the other hand this is barely gonna do shit in the grand scheme of things with how slowly resin regenerates

[edge-oftheworld]

going back through some of this fandom's history has made me realise, we really see people as black and white good or bad don't we?

[heartbeetz]

I NEED to get back into oc f/os. I just remembered my old casino themed anthro shark guy. He never got a solid enough ref sheet (or lore, really) for me to feel comfortable making him one of my f/os but maybe I should remedy that at some point. Big Jack.........

[ghcstcd]

Thinking about doing some $15 USD sketch comms, but they would be only portraits.

[theultracharmingladynoire]

I tried to stop myself from posting this but the whole 'victuuri is unhealthy because x or y or they are codependent/yuuri is always selfish and cold to victor' take that seems so prevalent across the post I came across genuinely upsets me so much it has been making me feel low-key physically nauseous when I think about anything related to the show and it sucks honestly

[queerofthedagger]

maybe that's just me being me but i think it's..... interesting, how much criticism/accusations/et al of the OTW recently is coming up so conveniently in that period between donation drive and election, argues so utterly in bad faith, and employs such a strong 'us vs them' rhetoric that is frankly baffling if it is actually coming from people who 1. have a basic understanding of the OTW's flat hierarchies and what that means for the workings of such a big org, and 2. have the orgs best interest and future in mind. none of this is to say that the OTW doesn't have its issues or room to improve, but you'd think that amidst the quick rise of fascism, purity culture, and their calls for censorship, people would take care not to present the bandwagon to those people on a silver platter, and also maybe........ bother 0.3 seconds to provide those annoying little shits called verifiable sources :))

[the-faultofdaedalus]

Stony ask: Between the 2 of them, who is the Halloween fanatic and who is the Christmas slut?

just because i am currently Resenting christmas with all my heart (had to listen to bad christmas music for 6 hours at work today) i am saying both halloween. this is personally extremely biased. and i dont care.

[its-your-mind]

I really really really love how the show is depicting Gabe. In the books, Percy doesn't think much about Gabe - he sucks, he's a dick, and he's smelly. Percy doesn't understand why his mom stays with him, but he’s a kid - he doesn't put too much thought into the ins-and-outs of the relationship. It's not even until the end of the book that he realizes that Gabe's been actually hitting Sally.

And so all we have for him now is the time we spend with Gabe at the start, and…

This is supposed to be his and Sally's apartment. Sally's the only one who brings in income, but the whole house is Gabe's. Only the one chair in front of the TV, even though Gabe said that he and Sally watch the Knicks together. His trash is all over the house, his poker table was leaning up against the wall... And he obviously feels like he is entitled to touch anything in the apartment, up to and including things that are explicitly Sally's:

And then, when Sally tells Gabe that she and Percy are going on their trip to Montauk...

He goes into the conversation expecting a bribe, and Sally already has one prepared. This is obviously a song and dance they've done plenty of times before.

Because abusive relationships rarely, if ever, look horrible from the outside. And they're not absolutely awful 100% of the time, either. Most abusers aren't cartoonish villains, nor are they awful to their spouses with every word they say. Abuse is often subtle, hard to notice, only clear in retrospect and when you consider a lot of individual instances of slightly off-color behavior all together.

This version of Gabe Ugliano isn't as obvious an abuser or villain as Smelly Gabe of the books, but he is more true-to-life - taking advantage of Sally, invading her privacy, the joint understanding that she won't be allowed to do something for herself and her son without his tacit approval. All of those are key hallmarks of domestic abuse, of a partner who has gained control over the relationship through emotional manipulation or physical threats and/or violence.

[dex-starr]

At least my brain isn’t like so vicious when I’m on meds cause it’s just like “bro you’re sad cause of this huh”

and I can just go “yeah I am” and go on about my day, it certainly beats dwelling on it and beating my own ass into the ground about it.

Still doesn’t necessarily fix the root cause but honestly I don’t know what would actually do that

[aplpaca]

On one hand plastic fiber is bad for the environment and its production should be regulated imo but also like the way most of the posts talking about the issue are framed is really tiring and doen't sit super well with me bc theyre all "these fabrics are horrible and feel bad and we should only ever use natural fibers and nothing else and in a better society polyester wouldn't exist."

but like. I'm autistic and my main sensory issues are with touch and texture. I can't wear like 98% of clothes sold in stores bc the styles and fabrics set off my sensory issues and make me feel like I have to rip my skin off and break my skull against a wall. And a solid 75-90% of what I'm actually able to wear is polyester bc of how it stretches (for reference, polyester clothing is about 50-60% of the market). Pretty much everything I can wear that's not a generic cotton t shirt is largely polyester, and I have not found any natural fibers that are wearable for me without also incorporating polyester. Like I can honestly make an argument that access to polyester clothing is an accessibility issue for me. And there's no way I'm the only person this applies to.

So like. the framing of "and it's such a shitty bad-feeling fabric" as a reason to limit its use is just. literally not true for a lot of people (even those who don't have sensory issues. If no one thought it was comfortable, it wouldn't sell, my man). and also completely irrelevant to the actually important environmental issues.

also like. With addressing the environmental issues of polyester and other synthetic fibers, it should also come with consideration of like, either finding an environmentally friendly alternative that's *actually* a valid alternative in terms of texture, stretch/behavior, and utility. or, in the absence of an alternative, finding a way to reduce the production of and reliance on polyester without making it impossible for those who can't tolerate other options to find clothing that works for them and doesn't make them feel like they're physically combusting

And "polyester bad shitty fabric and I hate it i love you linen uwu" does neither of those things (also I fucking hate you linen). like. If I could wear 100% natural fiber pants, I would. But I literally can't do that without having a meltdown. So until that issue is addressed, the "just wear natural fibers"/"we need to only use natural fibers" type of clothing sustainability campaigning unfortunately isn't accessible to me and others with similar issues

[navree]

god has decided to make this a "bite your nails until your fingers bleed" kind of day for some reason

[cripplecharacters]

Futuristic Settings and the Erasure of Disabilities

The common theme in a lot of futuristic, sci-fi or not, settings, is the abundance of cure tropes that are thrown in there. Disabled people either don't exist, or aren't actually disabled - they get a magical device that undoes their injury, or get a mech suit that basically does the same thing.

Often the setting is treated like an excuse that can't be rebutted in any way: “but my story is set in the future where medicine is better!”

So: is that true? Does better medicine actually mean less disabled people?

Historical Accuracy

[large text: Historical Accuracy]

In 1900, the life expectancy of a person born with Down syndrome was 9 years. Try putting yourself there and imagining that 2024 is the Future - better medicine, basically sci-fi in comparison to what they had back there. In that future, what is true?

a) There's no people with Down syndrome.

b) People with Down syndrome live to be 60 years old on average.

Answer? B. The only countries with fewer people with Down syndromes are the ones engaging in widespread eugenics, which is a topic I will not be getting into in this post, but I'm mentioning because the only places without disabled people are eugenicist.

The “better medicine” of the future didn't make Down syndrome curable, it made people with it survive longer. 50% of people born with it today will live to be over 60 years old. In the future, there will be retirees with Down syndrome. In the past, 50% of them wouldn't have made it into their teens.

Why does that matter?

[large text: Why does that matter?]

Future medicine won't make disabilities disappear. It will make them more manageable. Less deadly. Easier to survive.

If you base your knowledge and perception of disability throughout the times on sci-fi novels by able-bodied writers, you're going to hate how it actually works in real life.

Have we magically- technologically gotten rid of diabetes? No, 11% of Americans have it. 103 years ago, diabetes were lethal. There aren't fewer diabetics compared to the past. They live longer. You probably know or heard of someone who has diabetes.

You need to expand your understanding on how disability and medicine work, because “future = no disability” is genuine nonsense. It doesn't work like that, and it really frustrates me how writers dead-set on “logic” in their setting fail to see this.

Are paralyzed people walking around in various mechs, or are they using better wheelchairs than those from 100 years ago? Wheelchairs that make it easier to be independent? That help with symptoms of their disabilities by preventing pressure sores, or providing alternative methods of maneuvering?

In the future, why would there suddenly be those futuristic transplant* spines instead of wheelchairs that can be used with one's brain or eyes, for those who can't move their hands, mouth, or head? Why wouldn't there be wheelbeds for those who are currently bed-bound because they can't manage being upright in any way?

*Also, how are all of these magic disability-fixing transplants never actual transplants? Receiving a transplant basically always ends up in being immunocompromised because of the very way the body works. If you're writing about humans, this isn't going to change?

Things like sign language or wheelchairs have been used for thousands of years, they're not going away anytime soon or not-so-soon.

Future = More Disabled People?

[large text: Future = More Disabled People?]

We already discussed that there are presently common disabilities that used to be lethal a century ago or even less. If we use this fact for a futuristic setting, you suddenly have a myriad of new possibilities.

There's vastly better medicine? A lot of people deal with post-rabies syndrome because it's finally survivable, but it leaves people with the effects of the meningitis that rabies cause. There's way more quadriplegic people because the survival rates are much higher. Cancer survivors are more common because people live longer. Physical therapy for people who had prion diseases because they aren't fatal anymore but cause severe disability. Head trauma is more treatable, so there's more people with TBIs and less people dying in vehicular accidents.

The technology is super advanced? People with locked-in syndrome can operate an AAC device with their eyes, fully customize its voice to their liking, and not have to worry about battery life of their powerchair because it has sonar panels. Canes that can fold themselves with the click of a button so that they can fit in one's pocket.

There could be so many more adapted sports! Tools and technology that can adapt a house exactly to one's needs! Wheelchairs that are actually affordable! A portable pocket sized device that makes ableds behave normally around disabled people!

The point of this post isn't to completely shit on sci-fi settings, but instead to urge abled writers to think a bit more and try to be creative in the way they go about speculative fiction. Write something new! There's one billion stories about how impossible it is for disabled people to exist in the future, and it's upsetting at best to read that constantly when you're disabled. As long as there are people, there will be disabled people.

mod Sasza

[uyuforu]

Uranus in Solar Return Charts

Can we please stop associating Uranus with break ups or sudden horrible news in SRC????? Like this planet represents sudden change and unexpected news, yet it doesn't necessarily means it's bad, hold your horses. I'm so pissed at seeing only bad and negative observations about Uranus in Solar Returns, I decided to explain how Uranus actually play in your life yearly with my own SRC.

Anytime I had Uranus somewhere in my SRC, it mostly represented something that changed very suddenly.

Uranus 9H= I was going on trips very suddenly, unexpectedly but had good memories. Ruler of the 9H was Aries (fast trips/ week ends) and it was in 12H (trips). Ruler also conjuncted Juno and I was mostly doing these trips with my ex.

Uranus 6H= "funny" thing is that I had this placement during COVID time, and I was still at college, so my routine was def changed suddenly when we had to learn from home 100%.

Uranus 11H= This placement was in the same house as Chiron, and I suffered from losing friends this year. It was my first year of college and I didn't have many friends. Yet, sudden change since I met my best friend this year too! Moreover, 9H Ruler was Uranus and I was entering College, which created a huge change in my relationships since I met a lot of my current friends there. I also had a specific internet friend who helped me a lot that year.

Uranus 3H= This was tricky to understand at first, yet I remember this year I moved to country side of my country and was cut from seeing my friends, etc. So I was very much online in general and I was trying to meet more friends online. I indeed met my FS online this year (3H ruler in 7H) and it was very sudden!

Uranus 12H= This one was def harsh for me. I was moving abroad, living in a completely different culture than mine and honestly, I felt very lonely there. It was a true experience to have yet I was crying often. Yet, I also learned how to be more independent and enjoyed this alone time I had, to have more freedom and I appreciated to be by myself.

Uranus 10H= This is the placement I had this year lol. People said it means being fired from your job (why so negative) but that didn't happen lmao. My Natal 10H stellium would never. Though! This placement was exactly what it meant: me leaving "normal jobs", to get into a less conventional one. I was entering a liberal job, and something being online. This idea also came in a very unexpected way.

Uranus 7H= This is the placement I have for my next SRC, which is very soon! Many people associate this with breakup and tbh why not, Uranus meaning big big changes and sudden ones can actually transform this way. Yet, I am not in a relationship. And Rulers are def something to look at. I def think it means more sudden things happening in your relationships, and unexpected change. Things can change very fast or happen very fast. Ruler of the 7H is in 10H, and being Venus, I don't think it means a break up. Rather, 7H ruler in 10H can be an official and serious relationship. So this can translate either meeting someone and being in a relationship with them quite suddenly or being in a relationship with someone quite unexpectedly.

Anyway, hope it helped and please check more than just a planet in your houses!!

JULY BOOKING OPEN

email adress: tarotjunoboda@gmail.com

Soft To You presentation and Q&A ᡣ𐭩 rules ᡣ𐭩 private readings reviews

astrology menu ᡣ𐭩 tarot menu ᡣ𐭩 special astrology & tarot readings

[ilovedthestars]

A thought I’ve been having: While it's important to recognize the long history of many current queer identities (and the even longer history of people who lived outside of the straight, cis, allo “norm”) I think it's also important to remember that a label or identity doesn't have to be old to be, for lack of a better word, real.

This post that i reblogged a little while ago about asexuality and its history in the LGBTQ+ rights movement and before is really good and really important. As i've thought about it more, though, it makes me wonder why we need to prove that our labels have "always existed." In the case of asexuality, that post is pushing back against exclusionists who say that asexuality was “made up on the internet” and is therefore invalid. The post proves that untrue, which is important, because it takes away a tool for exclusionists.

But aromanticism, a label & community with a lot of overlap & solidarity with asexuality, was not a label that existed during Stonewall and the subsequent movement. It was coined a couple decades ago, on internet forums. While the phrasing is dismissive, it would be technically accurate to say that it was “made up on the internet.” To be very clear, I’m not agreeing with the exclusionists here—I’m aromantic myself. What I’m asking is, why does being a relatively recently coined label make it any less real or valid for people to identify with?

I think this emphasis on historical precedent is what leads to some of the attempts to label historical figures with modern terminology. If we can say someone who lived 100 or 1000 years ago was gay, or nonbinary, or asexual, or whatever, then that grants the identity legitimacy. but that's not the terminology they would have used then, and we have no way of knowing how, or if, any historical person's experiences would fit into modern terminology.

There's an element of "the map is not the territory" here, you know? Like this really good post says, labels are social technologies. There's a tendency in the modern Western queer community to act like in the last few decades the "truth" about how genders and orientations work has become more widespread and accepted. But that leaves out all the cultures, both historical and modern, that use a model of gender and sexuality that doesn't map neatly to LGBTQ+ identities but is nonetheless far more nuanced than "there are two genders, man and woman, and everyone is allo and straight." Those systems aren’t any more or less “true” than the system of gay/bi/pan/etc and straight, cis and trans, aro/ace and allo.

I guess what I’m saying is, and please bear with me here, “gay” people have not always existed. “Nonbinary” people have not always existed. “Asexual” people have not always existed. But people who fell in love with and had sex with others of the same gender have always existed. People who would not have identified themselves as either men or women have always existed. People who didn’t prioritize sex (and/or romance) as important parts of their lives have always existed. In the grand scheme of human existence, all our labels are new, and that’s okay. In another hundred or thousand years we’ll have completely different ways of thinking about gender and sexuality, and that’ll be okay too. Our labels can still be meaningful to us and our experiences right now, and that makes them real and important no matter how new they are.

We have a history, and we should not let it be erased. But we don’t need a history for our experiences and ways of describing ourselves to be real, right now.