#manage your own expectations

[serpentface]

What's the Wardi cultural take on Akoshos sleeping with/partnering with/marrying other Akoshos?

It's not highly regulated to a degree that there are overwhelming cultural norms about it. There's a lot of societal focus on akoshos being theoretically suitable sexual partners for both men and women due to being dual-gendered, but not to an extent that relationships with One Another are stigmatized.

They also largely get to escape from the most severe concerns about penetrator/penetrated power dynamics because they're not regarded as Men (they're regarded as dual-gendered, and they're a female social class on every practical level), there's no status of manhood to Lose by receiving sexual penetration. The only real thing you see in that department is people assuming that one acts as 'the man' and one acts as 'the woman', but this is largely due to preoccupation with a notion of sex being Penetration With A Penis (and that Penetration With A Penis means that one person is in a Man's Role and one person is in a Woman's Role). But this will not be regarded as unnatural as in same-gender male relations, akoshos will Have to take up a position in this sexual dichotomy if they want to have Real Sex (Penetration With A Penis) with each other, and this is not unnatural and doesn't involve gaining or losing status since they are simultaneously male and female, not men.

So like you might see individual culture critics finding stuff to nitpick about it as their annoyance of the week or a singular Guy here or there who thinks it's weird, but this isn't a widespread norm. The vast majority of people don't give a shit about akoshos having sex with each other. The worst thing you're likely to experience Solely by virtue of being in an akoshos-akoshos relationship is someone asking you (probably with genuine curiosity) which one does the man stuff and which one does the woman stuff.

Akoshos also don't experience Hard expectations for marriage (though there are societal pressures that make marriage an attractive safety net all the same, ESPECIALLY marriage to a man) so unofficial life-partnerships between akoshos are pretty much the Only same gender partnerships between unwed people that are going to go unquestioned. ((Sworn brotherhood is technically a same gender life partnership for men that is Functionally similar to marriage (in that it's a kin-making practice between unrelated adults), but the tradition is Built upon the assumption that both parties will be married to women and that a primary goal of this kinship is to provide security for both parties' wives and children)). Marriage obligations in general are more lax in the economically secure but not Wealthy lower mercantile classes (as obligations to support and perpetuate one's family are universal, but these obligations can be filled simply by having at least One son who can get hitched, and marriages in the lower classes have no political functions and therefore there's less reason to ensure All your children are wed (there's still incentives like dowry, but this is not desperately needed when a family is economically secure)). So akoshos in this class group tend to have a Lot more freedom in terms of their life arrangements and chosen partners (though still experience the limiting frameworks of structural misogyny in other capacities).

The only thing that is out of the picture is akoshos/akoshos marriage. Marriage in this society has a predominantly reproductive function, the concept of reproductively non-viable marriages is generally considered absurd. This is not JUST this culture's form of homophobia, as marriage is a very practical arrangement at its core - both in a reproductive capacity and as bedrock for the patriarchal blood-kinship family system that forms the core social unit. The idea of same gender marriage isn't just absurd because 'ewwww weird' it's like, that Cannot work within this system, it Cannot fill core functions of what a marriage intends to do here, the ways on which marriage and kinship are BUILT makes same gender marriage practically (rather than just socially) untenable.

The sole exception to the 'marriage = reproductively viable" rule is that akoshos can be married to men (which in practice is almost always as a remarriage after a man has secured At Least an heir). This has a Little bit of internal logic here in that they perform predominantly female social roles (thus are suited to being a wife, even if they can't bear children) (and also on practical levels of them having the same legal status as women) but it's really more of a 'this is just how it's always been' kind of thing. A lot of the older pre-Wardi identity dual-gender roles that got mashed together under the 'akoshos' name would have involved marriage to a man as a second wife/concubine, in addition to his primary wife who would bear his children. Men potentially having multiple spouses has not been retained as a cultural practice, but the notion that an akoshos Can be a wife to a man has survived into modern day legal and doctrinal practices around marriage.

So like this being said, marriage as it is legally defined is only between a man and a woman, a man and an akoshos, or a woman and an akoshos. In practice the latter two are comparatively VERY rare- a man/akoshos marriage cannot provide children (though an akoshos can practically fulfill all other obligations and duties of a wife), a woman/akoshos marriage Can provide children (and while akoshos cannot function as a male heir, these children Will take their akoshos-parent's family name (though the wife retains her father's family name)), but akoshos are legally grouped with women in terms of rights and privileges (including being permanently under legal domain of their father unless they have been legally handed off to a male husband) and Cannot provide hard power patriarchal support that this family system is built upon and therefore depends upon, which makes these marriages socio-economically insecure. They can obviously still be a good partner and parent, but this is not the same as having the Legal hard power of a patriarch.

Akoshos marrying each other would be reproductively and socially nonviable, and is treated as a similarly absurd concept to a man marrying a man or a woman marrying a woman. It's just not a part of the marriage and kinship framework, it's not a thing that you can Do.

[evankinkley]

half the fandom believing agatha and rio are the main characters of AAA, while the show, press, interviews, cast and crew couldn't be more clear that the main characters are agatha and billy.

[necrotic-nephilim]

i’m feeling messy. for the new ask game, 5 :)

for the choose violence ask game!

5. worst discord server and why

of COURSE you would choose to be this messy, you lil rat. <3 i will be kind enough to not name the server, it's a general Batfamily server i found on Disboard. most Bafam discord servers tend to be... anti leaning so it's something i sort of expect, but this one has a "ship advisory list", including ships you're not allowed to share media of (like fanfic or fanart) and if you discuss the ship you can be told to stop talking about it. and there were the typical ships you'd expect like Joker/Harley, BatJokes, and ofc a "no proships" umbrella ban. but some of the ships fucking baffled me. like canon ships were on this list. ships i to this day can't figure out why they'd be banned. the top ships of the list that just *got me* in terms of "... what is bad about this ship???" were

DickBabs

DonnaDick

Barry/Diana

Barry/Dinah

JayRose

Catwoman/Penguin

Talia/Bane

some of these i didn't know were shipped in the *first place* but even if they are, i can't fathom what's wrong with them. some of them are canon, normal ships? like what did JayRose do wrong. it's one of Jason's healthier relationships. and DonnaDick somehow gets me the most. my only guess is that antis heard them referred to as the Wonder Twins and thus decided the ship was incestual. bc otherwise how. why. i laugh everytime i think about DonnaDick being problematic.

on one hand i do think it's fucking hilarious of a list and it always makes me laugh bc i cannot fathom the mentality. but on the other hand it is sort of depressing that so many public social platforms for discussing the Batfam are becoming *so* anti-leaning that ships can be banned simply bc the mods of the server decided they were problematic for some unforeseen reason. it was the biggest depiction of "i don't like this ship so it's problematic" i've ever seen. like where does the goalpost stop moving? when does it somehow become problematic to ship things in general? it was wild even for anti stuff. truly the most baffling server i've been in.

[nostalgia-tblr]

that thing where thanks to Cultural Imperialism you know far too much about US politics but if you ask "what the fuck is that thing about" you are told not to have an opinion on the stuff that floods your news and social media constantly even if you try very hard not to have any thoughts on it (but also you are to have the Correct Thoughts on it or you're evil, because not caring about US politics is unthinkable. yet also not allowed. but don't you dare not know every american politician's position on Issue Of The Day In Americaland!)

[mars-ipan]

hey folks did you know i love super dangan ronpa 2

[rwby-confess]

Confession #125

[butts-bouncing-on-the-beltway]

I feel like the post I just reblogged pointing out the all-or-nothing in how many people interact with their deconstruction of systems of oppression is resonating for me right now with so many different moments in my life where someone decides that because some part of myself has access to some of the levers of control/influence/etc that come with the relationship to power, and decides what that must mean about all the other parts of me that might be explicitly refused access to those same levers.

It has happened in so many spaces/aspects of my life, and it can be so hard to feel safe and seen and trusting of others when that's my chronic relationship to being perceived - half truths and obfuscation.

It doesn't really change regardless of who's doing the assuming either. Like, where they land in relation to systems of power may influence which direction they lean in their assumptions about me, but even that is often inconsistent. Both sides of the equation (those who share my marginalizations and those who exist in spaces of closer proximity to power) will still do it nonetheless.

When I was doing my liminal social identities work in undergrad, this was actually a big part of the conceptualization we explored of traumtic alienation of self as individual from self as collective, and what it can do to people to exist in this liminal relationship with your environment and the people in it. As I'm starting to gather my thoughts about my stress modeling, this conceptualization is bubbling back to the surface. I'm finding myself meandering through it on both a path specifically my own, and in an effort to better understand what other paths may be available to people during their version of the process/experience.

Selfhood is so fragile, and so in need of balance between self-construction and co-construction for us humans, and that gives us so many beautiful, even spiritual, experiences of meaning making and generativity of self. It also createa many pivot points where we may find room in our path for vulnerability or blurring of self. As much as these pivot points can be distressing, I think they also sometimes become our foundations of change/personal evolution, when we find that through the distress of existing in shift, something meaningful is occurring or observable in our experience of self-in-transition.

I think something I've valued especially about my own relationship with self is its transience. It doesn't always end up somewhere I would be happy to sustain, but it always allows me a degree of comfort in complexity that I think has made my body-mind a safer place for me overall.

[catalisst]

[healingheartdogs]

Saw a post earlier of someone being like "see how my puppy isn't bothering me while I eat and is minding his own business playing in the other room? That's because in this house animals aren't ever allowed to have people food from the moment they come home with me so they never even learn to want it." The post and most of the comments on it were very high and mighty "I'm a better owner than other people, I'm the boss of my dog, I don't allow my dog to offend me by showing desire for highly desirable resources" attitude and were very much judging other people for not having the same boundaries and annoyances about dog behaviors around food with their own dogs in their own homes and I just like... absolutely can not relate at all, tbh. There is a type of person who uses phrases like "people food" unironically, thinks that dogs being allowed to have good things that are usually intended for humans is somehow offensive and wrong, gets annoyed by a dog even being allowed to exist in the same room when people are eating, and thinks a dog just looking at them for more than 30 seconds while they have food or hanging out watching them doing stuff is the dog bothering them and being rude, and every time I encounter this type of person it makes me wonder why they even own a dog when they clearly hate natural dog behaviors and are bothered by dogs just wanting to be around people, do things with them, and receive human attention more than once in a blue moon.

When I make breakfast after I wake up and take it to my room to eat Hermes always eagerly follows right behind me because he expects he's going to get something from me. That expectation is almost always correct, and I feel absolutely zero shame about it. Him laying calmly at my feet or next to my chair quietly watching me eat is not "bothering me". He's quite literally not doing anything to be a bother, he's just patiently chilling. If a dog hanging out nearby and calmly watching while people eat bothers you enough to consider that bad nosey behavior that is deserving of you ridiculing other dog owners for allowing it that's uhhh... weird af? At least to me it's weird, sorry not sorry. Like maybe you actually just don't like having dogs around then if they can bother you without even really doing anything? Cuz IDK about y'all but I love my dogs hanging around me and wanting to be close to me and even seeking engagement from me. I love them being excited about being around me and following me around because they know I give them good things. I also like having their attention and eyes on me in general - especially Hermes, as a dog of a breed that is often more environmentally focused than handler focused and whose attention I've had to work for and earn. Looking at me is something that I specifically reward all my dogs for and immediately start to capture during their initial introductions to clicker training because I find it to be beneficial during training sessions (as well as a good way to charge the clicker), so it would be ridiculous and unfair for me to get annoyed by it and discourage it in other scenarios like when I'm eating. In fact, I see Hermes calmly laying down nearby and politely seeking eye contact with me whenever I look his way while I'm eating my breakfast as a sign that he knows how to act to get what he wants because he understands his training well, and that he is putting that training to work by being an attentive calm good boy and waiting patiently for me to respect my end of the deal that I have taught him and give him his reward for the behaviors he's offering that I have repeatedly asked him for in the past.

Also like... if he is in the way somehow while people are eating or if we're eating something he can't have and I don't want him near us just in case someone drops something (even though he has an extremely solid leave it, still better safe than sorry) then I just tell him to go to his bed??? and then share a little bite of my food with him to reward him for going to lay on his bed if it's safe or give him something else like a couple of small dog treats or a pork chew on his bed if my food isn't dog safe. After that he will stay on his bed and keep being a calm patient boy because he's learned that staying on his bed after being told to go to it means he will continue to occasionally get more treats or small pieces of my dog safe food tossed to him for the duration of his time there until he is released. Often times because he's working so hard to be calm and patient to earn a few bites of my food he just ends up falling asleep next to me or on his bed, which is definitely the opposite of being bothersome. I like to thank him for that patience and calmness by gently waking him up to share the last bite of my food or give him a little treat jackpot and some praise before releasing him.

Maybe I'm a "bad" trainer (lol) but I enjoy spoiling my dogs by sharing some of my dog safe "people food" with them in moderation, and you can definitely share "people food" with dogs without making them annoying or untrustworthy around food. Despite what the person who made that post seems to incorrectly think, simply letting a dog have a taste of "people food" sometimes does not create unwanted bothersome behaviors around food. Rewarding unwanted behaviors that bother you instead of wanted behaviors that don't bother you is what causes that. That's it, that's the sole cause. Like... you could just only share food with them if they're being calm or waiting patiently on their bed or whatever it is you want from them during meal times. Boom, the "bothering" problem is solved and your dog still gets to enjoy a special treat. In fact, my experience as a dog trainer is that the high value and novelty of that special "people food" treat often makes the rewarding of the not-bothering behavior you want from them while you eat much more motivating and effective than giving them one of their regular treats or chews as a reward or distraction, so the settling down not-bothering behavior you want is even more likely to be consistently freely offered up in the future since it is so highly rewarded.

When I've had clients in the past express concerns about causing begging by giving their dogs "people food" or tell me they feel guilty about it because they've been told by people like that poster I saw that it's a bad thing to do in general, this has been my advice to them - not to stop doing the whole sharing thing that makes them and their dog happy, but just to make it more productive for the kind of relationship they want to have with their dog and the behaviors they are wanting to see. It's a simple solution that can turn a meal into a nearly effortless high value training session for teaching settling during household activities and around food, which is something that is a common frustration to achieve for a lot of inexperienced dog owners. If you handle your dogs sometimes being given bits of food scraps as treats this way then everyone wins, especially the people who like to spoil their dogs and share food with them (which is VERY NORMAL TO WANT TO DO BECAUSE WE ARE A SOCIAL SPECIES THAT BONDS THROUGH RESOURCE SHARING) because now those people can turn that desire to spoil their beloved companions into some easy training. Just be sure to consider if ingredients are dog safe or not and be mindful of oversharing and sharing foods with high fat content because maintaining a balanced diet is important for health.

Also that OP apparently doesn't realize this yet based on the wording of their post, but if you have a dog that is at all decently food motivated then just ignoring them while you have food and never sharing is not going to teach them to leave people alone in the presence of food and never try to seek food from anyone. This is especially true if anyone ever accidentally drops something around your dog (it'll happen eventually) and they snag it and self reward because you never actually taught them not to do that, or if anyone else in your house isn't as firm with that boundary or is unable to enforce it consistently and ends up giving them food purposefully or accidentally (as can often happen in households with children or that sometimes invite guests over). "I don't ever share people food with animals in my house starting from day one and I ignore them when food is out so they never learn to even want it to begin with" is not training your dog to leave food or people who are eating food alone. That's doing nothing and hoping that your new puppy or dog doesn't care about the delicious smells of food or people gathering together in the house for food related activities multiple times a day enough that they will quickly get bored and give up on trying to investigate all "people food" related activities for the rest of their lives without you training them, which is an absolutely ridiculous expectation. Just not ever giving a dog any of your food doesn't make it stop smelling like food to them and won't magically make them never be curious about seeing what you have and if they can get some of it. They don't have to be given food by you off your plate to know that it smells interesting or to figure out that seeing you eating it means it might be something they can eat. Having a superiority complex about NOT actually training your new puppy how to act around food and ignoring them as "training" instead is certainly funny, in a "not funny haha, funny weird" kind of way. It's also pretty irresponsible since some foods that humans eat are dangerous to dogs. Instead of just ignoring them when food is around and hoping they'll learn to leave all food that isn't their dog food alone on their own, a responsible owner should actually be actively teaching their dogs to leave food in general alone unless it is offered to them, even when food is left where they can easily get to it.

Anyway, if people could just stop being weird about dogs doing normal dog things and existing in spaces around humans, do some basic research on dog behavior and how dogs learn before getting a dog, actually train their dogs to the minimum level required to make themselves not be regularly upset at their dogs for acting untrained and "bothering" them, and stop developing weird superiority complexes because they get lucky for a while right after bringing home a new dog or puppy and it manages to not cause them any problems or upset them yet... that would be cool.

[deus-ex-mona]

s. s ave me, meoto…

[mintedwitcher]

I just saw a "life hack" video (I hate that term but that's what the OP called it so) for an alternate way to open a pull-tab tin, by slotting a fork/spoon through the tab and using it as a lever to open the lid. I thought it was pretty great. Pull-tabs are my enemy in the kitchen, mostly because nearly every time I open one by hand, the momentum of the lid opening causes the contents to splatter. It irritates the fuck out of me. Now, I have a hard silicone hook tool to open them, which I love, but I've never actually tried using a fork or a spoon to do the same job. So, I thought it was pretty cool that OP was sharing this.

Tell me why there are hordes of angry, defensive assholes in those comments making fun of it. "How to make an easy job harder!" "Just open it by hand like you're supposed to!" "The Laziness has peaked!"

First of all: disabled people exist. Elderly people exist. People with mobility, dexterity, or strength issues exist. Just because you're not one of them (yet) does not mean these ideas are useless or lazy. And the implementation of these ideas by someone who is not disabled or elderly does not make someone lazy, either.

Second: just because you see something posted online does not mean it's automatically made for you! See there's this thing called a target audience, which means a select demographic that the content is aimed for. And to help determine who that audience is, we normally use these things called context clues. In this case, clue number one: can you easily open a pull-tab by hand? Yes? Then this isn't for you, move along.

This should not be this complicated. If a tool or an idea or a 'hack' is not 'useful' to you, then it's not for you. You're not the target audience. If you can find use for a tool or an idea or a 'hack', then congratulations, it's for you! Use it! It's literally that simple! But we should not have to be explicitly labelling every little idea with "THIS IS FOR XYZ" for you to even consider that maybe, some things just are not for you.

[whoviandoodler]

you ever go into a tag for a show or whatever and find several painstakingly created gif sets from interviews with the actors where they're just like. fully mocking fans? talking about them like they're the most despicable thing on this earth kind of bitter mocking. and on the one hand you're like, okay, i get it, fans can really be shit and get overly parasocial and think you owe them something beyond the work you created but on the other it's like. bro this makes me not want to engage with anything you do at all. ever. you don't have to sing your fans praises but you can do them the basic courtesy of professionalism and not ridiculing the entirety of everyone who both engages with your creative work and whose interest ultimately results in your paycheck.

[starbuck]

good things today:

National Park agreed to let us do a year-long research project starting in January which is gonna look REALLY good on my resume (and also be fun!)

difficult conversation with my boss went well (I think she agreed with me and I’d gonna follow my advice/had already reached the same conclusion herself)

fun concert (with banjo!)

made plans with a friend for tomorrow

got school work done

[anaalnathrakhs]

btw my mom said it. she said it to me looking me in the eyes. i told her about how difficult it was for me to get through those family reunions, and she admitted it was very important to her, important enough that she was just going to do it anyway.

[angeart]

the boatem circus mumbo rambles might be late...

[drev-the-procrastinator]

love waking up to my mom giving me an ultimatum and ordering that i have to give up my (admittedly expensive) apartment 1n 2 weeks and move back home for good. i had stuff to do today but i guess being gripped by dread and anxiety works too