#marriage equality means polyamorous marriages

[thorne1435]

I don't know about you guys, but I think that if (at least) two people say that they're married, then that means that they're married. No matter who it is, if they all agree that they are married, then they should immediately be legally recognized as "married."

I do not care about the "sanctity" of filing your taxes or w/etf.

Just let anyone claim anyone (of age, who consents, in their household) as a spouse. It literally does not matter. You should not care.

Make it so that both of them have to put each other down as "Spouse" so that consent is better enforced. I don't care. Just get rid of marriage as a legal process. This is stupid.

[elexuscal]

Bi-Ace Laurence and Aro Roland

Okay so a few weeks ago I made a comment about viewing Jane Roland/Laurence as queer, and @sere-allwehaveisnowasked me to dig into it. This is a slightly cleaned up version of the ramble I gave on the Temeraire discord, just on the off-chance folks from the broader fandom might find it interesting!

So I can see how that description of Laurence/Roland might seem surprising at a first glance! They're an M/F pair, and obviously that lends itself to a very traditional heterosexual reading. But that's not the only possible reading, at all!

"Queer" is a catchall term and an umbrella term, which means there has been a lot of quibbling over what exactly 'counts' is queer. "Is X queer?" is a Discourse repeated ad nauseam; replace X with 'ace people', 'aro people', 'polyamorous people', 'kinksters', 'furries', etc.... It gets really hard to draw firm lines. Which is why I generally subscribe to te definition of queer as "anything which transgresses the social norms in the broadly overlapping space of sexuality, romance, and gender" So on a base level, you have the fact that in the time and setting of the Temeraire series, Jane Roland is breaking So Many gender norms. She's a soldier, masculine, heavier set and with facial scarring. Under some more flexible definitions of queer, almost any sexual and/or romantic relationship she entered into would be inherently queer due to how she transgresses the boundaries. That said, while I do find something compelling there, that alone isn't really why I see Jane/Will as queer, since while Roland might be transgression within the text, to the average 21st century reader, she's not nearly so shocking.

For me, it's much more about how Laurence/Roland fits much much more into broader queer readings of both their characters, notably the bi (and to a lesser extent, ace) experience for Laurence, and the aromantic reading for Roland.

I very much do read Laurence as a bisexual guy who never really realised he was bisexual, partly because his attraction genders were fairly equal, and both fairly low. In book one, he doesn't really seem personally that attracted to the idea of a traditional marriage-- it's just sort of What One Does, and he does like the idea of the companionship a marriage with offer. He's friends with Edith, their engagement makes sense, and he doesn't have any other option that's more appealing, so... Why not? But equally, while he's disappointing to lose that future, he's not heartbroken either.

Specifically, I think what attracts Laurence is military competence. (Or maybe not quite military per say, but certainly something adjacent. Being in the field, getting your hands dirty). And he'd never really twigged to that because... All the women he had met until then were Society Ladies(tm). They were divorced from that entire sphere. And sure, Laurence saw it in men, but he didn't read it as sexual attraction, he just read it as admiration. (It can be hard to untangle the difference!)

But then he meets Jane. Who is feminine while also masculine. A woman who displays all these elements of military competence that Laurence is foremost drawn to. And I really do think that's the Rosetta stone for realising his attraction to men.

I also think there's a really great ace reading of him getting back together with Jane for LoD? Not just that he apparently hadn't had any sex for the previous 3.5 books; that could equally be attributed to his depression and social isolation. But it's the way that encounter has less to do with him craving sex specifically, or craving romance, as him feeling the joy and relief of having regained Jane's trust.

As for Roland... Man I read her as aro, so bad. I can absolutely see the reading where she isn't inherently/naturally disinclined to romance, but basically taught herself to repress her desire for the sake of her career. And that's definitely compelling. But I see so much of someone who just doesn't really care about romance, doesn't really get what everyone else sees in it, and is just going to carry on without it.

And I just love that Roland/Laurence continues throughout the entire series, but doesn't end with them getting married and having kids or anything like that. They have this great fiends with benefits situation which is genuinely SO refreshing.

All of this I think dovetails deeper into my feelings about queerness in the Temeraire series as a whole. These books were published in a time where there was a huge push for greater gay representation (one we're still living through now), and I believe that was a big part of the analysis. And indeed, I think it's fair to examine and ask why there wasn't more of an explicit M/M representation in the story. But at the same time, a question I often grapple with as an a-spec person, is how do you depict the more 'subtle' queer identities? Especially ones like asexuality and aromanticism, which are defined by a lack of something? Especially in historical fiction, where it would be deeply weird to have the characters use modern terminology and bust out some pride flags. And I don't know if any of this was Novik's intentions or not; to a large extent, I don't care. But I do think there's a lot of stuff in this narrative that resonates with a lot of bi, asexual, and aromantic experiences, and that's really interesting to analyse.

[anistarrose]

I think when a lot of queer people who aspire to marriage, and remember (rightly) fighting for the right to marriage, see queer people who don't want marriage, talking about not entering or even reforming or abolishing marriage, there's an assumption I can't fault anyone for having — because it's an assumption borne of trauma — that queers who aren't big on marriage are inadvertently or purposefully going to either foolishly deprive themselves of rights, or dangerously deprive everyone of the rights associated with marriage. But that's markedly untrue. We only want rights to stop being locked behind marriages. We want an end to discrimination against the unmarried.

We want a multitude of rights for polyamorous relationships. We want ways to fully recognize and extend rights to non-romantic and/or non-sexual unions, including but not limited to QPRs, in a setting distinct from the one that (modern) history has spent so long conflating with romance and sex in a way that makes many of us so deeply uncomfortable. And many of us are also disabled queers who are furious about marriage stripping the disabled of all benefits.

We want options to co-parent, and retain legal rights to see children, that extends to more than two people, and by necessity, to non-biological parents (which, by the way, hasn't always automatically followed from same-gender marriage equality even in places where said equality nominally exists. Our struggles are not as different as you think). We would like for (found or biological) family members and siblings to co-habitate as equal members of a household, perhaps even with pooled finances or engaging in aforementioned co-parenting, without anyone trying to fit the dynamic into a "marriage-shaped box" and assume it's incestuous. We want options to leave either marriages, or alternative agreements, that are less onerous than divorce proceedings have historically been.

I can't speak for every person who does not want to marry, but on average, spurning marriage is not a choice we make lightly. We are deeply, deeply aware of the benefits that only marriage can currently provide. And we do not take that information lightly. We demand better.

Now, talking about the benefits of marriage in respective countries' current legal frameworks, so that all people can make choices from an informed place, is all well and good — but is not an appropriate response to someone saying they are uncomfortable with marriage. There are people for whom entering a marriage, with all its associated norms, expectations, and baggage, would feel like a betrayal of one's self and authenticity that would shake them to their core — and every day, I struggle to unpack if I'm one of them or not. If I want to marry for tax benefits, or not. If that's worth the risk of losing disability benefits, in the (very plausible) possibility that I have to apply for them later in life. If that's worth the emotional burden of having to explain over and over, to both well-meaning and deeply conservative family members, that this relationship is not one of romance or sex. (Because, god, trying just to explain aromanticism or asexuality in a world that broadly thinks they're "fake" is emotional labor enough.)

Marriage is a fundamental alteration to who I am, to what rights an ableist government grants me, and to how I am perceived. I don't criticize the institution just because I enjoy a "free spirit" aesthetic or think the wedding industry is annoying, or whatever.

[francis-writes]

Being in polyamorous relationship with Feyd and Rabban HCs with GN!reader

( specifically in a vee type of relationship so you're with both of them but there's no incest)

SFW

I know I said before that they wouldn’t share you, at least with each other but hey, a girl (gender neutral) can dream! And ending up with them both isn't so impossible.

It's easier to start if you're with Feyd-Rautha first, or if you're free and still trying to choose. Feyd is more confident so it's less risky in his eyes to share you. Though he's possesive, well, however that sounds, he sees this as a way to show his superiority over Rabban. Like yeah, you choose Feyd first and Rabban wouldn’t be able to have you if Feyd didn't mercifully agree for that. Rabban isn't very happy with this idea and games of his brother but he accepts it as the only way to be with you. The other way around, it would be much harder to convice Rabban for a polyam relationship because he doesn't want to give away everything to his brother and he would be afraid that you would leave him eventually. But there's also another reason that motivates them both to agree on sharing you: threesomes. But NSFW part will be later.

If you agree on this relationship, you have an important duty and that's bringing balance and stability between them. Watching shit go down is funny once in awhile but it's better if you're boyfriends don't have a constant war with each other.

You usually spend your time with only one brother at once, not just because they like to have your full attention but also all of you have own duties. But every now and then you make sure to spend time all three together.

For longer time, it's not official. Giedi Prime might be famous as planet of debauchery but it's only in some ways: you can have as much concubines as you want, especially when you're rich, but having a stable relationship with two men is still taboo. The other matter is fact that Baron still considers gaining power through getting his nephews into political marriage.

Speaking of the Baron... I mentioned in other post that he would enjoy if brothers competed for your affection because he could use that conflict for his own goals. Happy stable relationship isn't useful to him at all. Even if you have some higher position there's still two problems: 1. Why waste two nephews on one political marriage. Not stonks 2. Happy stable relationship is a threat to his power. Nephews may listen to him less. Rabban may gain self-esteem. That's a big risk. But well, you're still safe as much as you can be. Brothers protect you and they had a talk with their uncle to ensure some rules and your status.

Your relationship isn't official and known to most people, commoners, other Houses and even some local nobles. You don't accompany brothers during public events and even if you're there, you keep your distance and have believable excuse for your presence. Only their inner circle knows about what's between you three. You can be more open about it during dinners together, though when there's Baron Harkonnen present, you can sense he's not very happy about any sign of affection. But who knows, maybe one day he will start appreciating you.

Still on sfw note, when you're all in one place, you usually share a bed. Unless you're not very cuddly and each one sleeps in separate bed to have enough space.

In a scenario where they all survived events of Dune and remained in positions of power, when there's no one stopping them, they would eagerly marry you if you wanted (by no one I mean their uncle; Bene Gesserit and many other Houses thinks that it's a scandal but uhmm Harkonnens don't give a shit abt that). Any previous conflicts and fight for dominance would be put aside. They want to show that you're equally married to one of them, not just are a spouse of one and lover of the other. Desire to show the middle finger to social expectations is even stronger than any their competition.

NSFW

Of course, I know I couldn't skip that part. I know you waited for it. So yeah, now you can finally read about threesomes, the reasons you got into this post.

I'll skip the moments when you are just with one of the brothers because there are many other posts about it. The only thing I can add in that matter is that for some time they considered making a schedule to make sure that you don't spend too much time with one of them but eventually you gave up on this idea.

Question is, isn't it awkward for them to share you? Wouldn't they feel weird while spitroasting you - lets say, you suck off Rabban, he looks up and looks in the face of his brother while Feyd fucks you from behind. Isn't it unfomfortable even for them? The answer is no. At the beginning they may have some doubts, but lust quickly wins with other feelings and they never mind it again. Despite all the conflicts between them, they know each other well enough to not feel embarrassed while naked around each other. Also they are kinky enough to uphold the reputation of House Harkonnen loving pleasure and perversy. They would rather high five each other over your back than feel awkward (it's just a metaphor. Unless... jk)

Dynamics change everytime, especially if you're a switch. As I mentioned before, Feyd is dom leaning switch and Rabban is sub leaning switch but that doesn't stop them from ocassionaly dominating you together. Or sometimes you dom one of them while other doms you. Or you dom them both. Or you dom one of them and the other helps, well, not sexually but for example he says something to help you humiliate your sub (I'm not pointing fingers). You get the point.

Sometimes you fuck just one of them but you're not completely alone and the other brother just sits next to you and either minds his bussiness or just observes you while being kinda turned on and kinda supportive.

You: Feyd, I am sorry but do you have to keep staring?

Feyd: *shows thubs up* i just admire your strength. Go on. Ride him like Fremen rides a sandworm.

You and Rabban: ;_;

[rewritingcanon]

no girl tell us what you think about jegulily!! im so here for it (tone is weird but I mean that genuinely, I don't ship them so I'm not here to be weird)

dw bae ur tone is fine ! (i’ve been waiting for an ask like this 💀) i think jegulily is... yeah its…. like usually as long as its legal idgaf as long as shippers portray their characters right but regulus fans are literally incapable 😭🙏 WHY WOULD U PAIR A MUGGLEBORN AND A BLOOD SUPREMACIST IM SO DONE WITH DIS FANDOMMMM!! that actually goes for a lot of lily ships like bartylily as well (no clue where that came from either but it’s equally as stupid lmfao).

and jegulily just feels like shoving in lily because people feel bad for ditching her, or shoving in regulus because some people like jily and jegulus and want them (for some reason) to coincide even though it makes zeroooo sense for it to. like, idk if i said this with jegulus before (i yap sm on this account i forget what i say), but like it, jegulily can be done well if a realistic dynamic is taken into account, but the marauders fandom is allergic to nuance and so just chalks up everything regulus does and believes to his neglectful homelife. hes not all-bad, sure, i do feel bad for him, but im nowhere close to shipping him with a woman whos part of the people hes trying to eradicate, or with her man who purposefully went against all pureblood tradition (which is such a large part of james’ character— he is a pureblood that chooses to be seperate from that culture hellooooo plz wake uppppp).

marauders fandom has a chronic “i can fix him” mentality when it comes to wizard neo nazis, i have never understood it. but thats a topic for another day.

jegulily should be filled with envy, toxicity and prejudice stop nerfing it to be some fluffy feel-good polyamorous stable marriage where they raise harry together. yall are looking over the potential. this ship has blood and guts in it plz act like it or else idk what to say 😭 if it doesnt end with at least one of them getting murdered i dont want it.

[term-repost]

[ID: A pride flag with five horizontal stripes of: dark purple, dark pink, orange, pale yellow, and green. End ID.]

Amatopunk!

Challenging notions of what it means to be in a relationship, defining love, and how important each form of it is to society. Amatopunk as an idea challenges amatonormantivity, and how society views aspec people, polyamorous people, and others who do not fit into the “right” mold. Anyone can identify with amatopunk and be a part of it if it fits them.

While it was made with aspecs and polyamorous people primarily in mind, this is because those are groups I am in. So long as you identify with the ideas of amatopunk, you are welcome to use it however you want. Disabled people, trans people, GNC people, POC, and so many more can be under this label; anyone who wants to be amatopunk is.

Amatopunk will mean different things for different people, and that’s okay. It’s a broad, inclusive label for different types of people, and how amatonormantivity affects them and/or their community.

Amatopunk is focused on both relationships and love itself. Some people have gone around saying it’s strictly, or more specifically, about relationships, and this is not true. Amatopunk is about both love and relationships!

Amatopunk does not include or endorse dangerous relationship styles, or things that harm other people. Notable examples include pedophilia, zoophilia, and incest. Please do not everuse this flag to create incestuous, pedophilic, or abusive content.

Amatopunk ideas and notions!

Fighting the idea that certain kinds of relationships are necessary

Fighting the idea that love must be followed a certain way, or that you must experience certain kinds of it

Fighting the idea that sex is required in any kind of relationship

Inclusion of aspecs, polyamorous people, and others within the community, and fighting against the stigma they deal with. Amatopunk is no place for bigots or exclusionary ideas.

Erasing the idea that you need any kind of relationship to be whole, or happy. Relationships are a choice, not a must.

For many, amatopunk may include relationship anarchy; it’s a big topic, so I definitely suggest looking this up!

Breaking down what it means to be in a QPR versus a romantic relationship versus a friendship; the “lines” between the two are important to many, but they are not a must. Friends can kiss and have intimate relationships, romantic partners can choose to never kiss, etc.- it’s about comfort and boundaries, not the type of relationship you’re in.

Challenging the idea that people like aspecs, polyamorous people, etc. are broken or cannot have a regular family. Furthermore, you do not need a family at all, if you don’t want one.

A family can be a man, woman, and two kids, a family can be three moms and one kid, and a family can be one man and 6 dogs; family is family.

A heavy emphasis on comfort, boundaries, communication, and consent in all forms of relationships

A removal from the ideas of what makes a family. Full inclusion of found families, queer families, polyam families, etc.

A rejection of forced gender roles on all genders, and of course, inclusion and representation of MLM, WLW, diamoric, and all kinds of other queer people in all kinds of relationships.

Marriage equality for those who do not have it, such as disabled people and polyamorous people.

Full inclusion of alloaros, loveless aros, aplatonic people, and others who may feel like outsiders in their own communities (so long as they want to be included!).

A rejection of amatonormantivity and societies perceptions of romance and sex in general.

(This is not all it can be! This is just some examples of what amatopunk may look like. As previously stated, amatopunk is a very broad, inclusive, and personalized thing, with experiences that even I likely do not experience being included within it.)

The flag!

The flag was made by me, and is a blend of various flags and other colors. Other people can absolutely make their own amatopunk flag if they would rather use a different kind! Furthermore, you can use mine for whatever you’d like so long as you credit me in some way.

The stripes do not have specific meanings due to how broad the experiences within this idea may be, and everyone is welcome into amatopunk, but purple and green were put there with aspecs in mind.

originally posted and coined by user Kenochoric /Kenochoric-moved

archive of the amatopunk carrd | archive post

[greenevergreens]

Rotten—Radical Feminists

What being a radical feminist SHOULD mean:

Caring about ALL women, trans women, disabled women, women who are stay at home or 'traditional' wives, women who are sex workers, women who are staunchly modest and are waiting till marriage to have sex. Supporting women who are more sexually liberated and have frequent one-night stands. Standing up for women who want to have lots of kids and women who are childfree. Supporting women that want an abortion and women who'd rather die than get an abortion, even when the baby isn't likely to survive either way. Women who are part of a polyamorous, polygamous, or polyandrous relationship. Women who are kinky and women who are vanilla.

It should also mean understanding how sexist societal rules and ideals harm everyone, and while yes feminism isn't & shouldn't ever be a male centric movement. It's focus on gender equality is and should include discussions on how inequality and bioessentialism effects and harms everyone. As well as how to reach true gender equality we can't just fight for women's rights, freedoms and respect, we must also fight to dismantle harmful systems that enable & encourage men to demonize women and femininity.

And again, to fight AGAINST bioessentialism, both to avoid victim blaming and avoid a new version of 'boys will be boys', as such letting men get away with being violent and sexist. Because if men are inherently evil and violent by birth, it's unreasonable (or even cruel) to expect him to be anything other than evil and violent. It's then also only ever ALWAYS a woman's fault for being the victim of a violent crime when a man in the perpetrator.

After all, if someone (woman) wanted to live with/around polar bears (men), and got attacked, you wouldn't be surprised. If anything, you'd tell them that they shouldn't be mad at or hateful towards the polar bear, since it's only doing as you'd expect a polar bear (one of a rare group of animals that are known to actively hunt, kill and eat people). That they should have/did know that this would happen and did it to themselves.

Bioessentialism is BAD!! Men aren't inherently violent, evil or predatory, and women aren't inherently pure, peaceful and kind.

-=-

What being a radical feminist has become to mean:

Being anti woman, especially any woman that doesn't strictly adhere to what YOU personally believe a woman should look, or act like. Being anti sex worker at the MAJOR detriment to both women who choose to be sex workers, AND women that are victims of sex trafficking (women have been arrested & jailed, yes JAILED for being a VICTIM of sex trafficking). Only focusing on western feminine ideals, ignoring (at best) or outright shaming and degrading any idea of womanhood and femininity that doesn't line up with said western ideals. Transphobic as all hell, which ALWAYS ends up hurting cis women as well (though you should care about transphobia even if cis women were never impacted by it). Victim blames CONSTANTLY. Makes excuses for men & their behavior “if we had less aggressive/violent porn men wouldn't be sexually violent towards women/wouldn't see women as sex objects” (wrong, sexist men are going to be sexist & are going to objectify women regardless of the porn they have access to, it's not the porn that makes a man sexist, it's the community, society, and people around him that contribute to (but not entirely cause) a man to be sexist).

-=-

Also, if you're a radfem, just block me, you and I both know we aren't going to change the other's mind.

This post isn't for you [radfems], it's a vent about how a term that should be a good thing, has been taken over by women who hate women, pretending that THEIR special hate for women is somehow pro-woman.

You radfems aren't going to convince me that trans women aren't women, or that men are inherently evil or bad. And I know I'm not going to be able to convince you that trans women are women, and that gender doesn't have any inherent role in if a person is good or bad. Nor will I be able to convince you that men & women are a hell of a lot more similar than you'd like to accept.

So just save yourself some time, and block me, I won't be responding to any of your comments anyway. So go find something else to do, read a book, watch some TV, go take a walk or whatever, I don't care.

[getsuuna]

another day, another dumb ass take from KNY TikTok Fandom !!!! /extremely derogatory

the topic of the day is Uzui's family, and it all started off from a girl on TikTok affirming Tengen's marriage is strictly polygamous, which could be a valid opinion from a certain point of view, but let's dig further.

she was specifically referring to people portraying them as a polyamorous relationship, and strongly opposed to it, going so far as:

•blocking people who tried to discuss (including me)

•making a mockery video on it (which she then deleted due to threats in DMs, which I don't justify, no matter how rude she was)

•unblocking me trying to discuss further, except all she did was talking to me as if I was an uneducated and misinformed fool, and eventually blocked me again after speaking utter nonsense

so, what was the nonsense about?

it started with Suma, but I'm sadly going to have to digress on Tengen himself. she denied Tengen being a polyamorous character, because "he's polygamous and no you cannot be both"

now, I indeed spent lots of time educating myself on labels as a queer person, but I am not polyamorous, so correct me if I'm mistaken: Tengen is polyamorous by definition.

I never denied that Tengen is in a polygamous marriage, but he's polyamorous.

Uzui's family was in a clan that canonically practiced polygamy solely for reproduction purposes, which, by the way, is usually the reason why polygamy was practiced in different cultures, and it's obviously rooted in misogyny. even the manga itself portrays this tradition as dehumanizing for women, it portrayed the historical reality of women being seen as possession and inferior worth overall.

Tengen, too, was forced into polygamy, but literally most of his character revolves around the fact that he detached himself from that toxic environment, and he was the only one that actively valued his wives' lives more than his own.

briefly, he was the only one that actually LOVED his wives, unlike every other male member of his clan in such polygamous marriages.

yes, he's in a polygamous marriage, but he loves all of his wives equally and they're all obviously consenting to that relationship as an actual marriage, and not as an excuse to make babies. polygamy was never about feelings and love, unlike polyamory. Tengen is undeniably polyamorous, and he's widely seen and known as polyamorous representation.

yet this kid apparently had the nerve to deny that, and also denied that polygamy as a concept and as a practice is misogynistic and messed up. "there's people who are ok with it" maybe because it's tradition forced upon them??? "polyamory didn't exist back then" 😭😭😭😭😭😭😭 neither did every queer label that we now know and use. sexualities weren't labeled nor legal, and it absolutely didn't mean they weren't there, and the sole fact that she assumed that made me want to just give up on that so-called argument we were having.

I wasn't even irritated anymore, just disappointed but not surprised. she just kept bragging about the same 2 phrases over and over and assuming I didn't know nor understand what she was trying to say.

what maturity level do you actually expect to give off if you start the discussion by assuming I don't know what you're talking about, using annoying and ironic pet names and just going "uhrm I don't think you understood...! hope that helps...!" ??? I unfortunately lack the patience to deal with such buffoonery but overall it's basic common sense that someone who wants to have an actual discussion should NEVER behave like that. it's not really the fact that she's wrong that pissed me off, it's the attitude, the fake superiority complex kinda vibe.

moving on to what was supposed to be the initial topic: their whole polygamous marriage being or not being polyamorous.

they're not all legally married to each other, the 3 women are only legally married to Tengen (which is the point that homegirl repeated to me over and over again as if I didn't have enough comprehension skills while reading the manga)

HOWEVER, just because they're legally recognized as polygamous doesn't mean the 3 women can't be interested in each other as much as Tengen is interested in all 3 of them.

polyamorous Tengen ≠ polyamorous relationship, we get it, but what if? Gotōge revealed that during the marriage interview, Suma proposed herself as a wife instead of her sister,, and immediately after, they also revealed that Suma is bisexual.

oh, wait, the bisexual label didn't exist back then, yet bisexuality existed indeed! 💋

but that's besides the point, because bisexuality obviously doesn't imply polyamory...however², Gotōge has coincidentally revealed this cute little fun fact right after speaking about the fact that she begged to be Tengen's wife.

Tengen's father apparently chose the wives for his sons basing himself on the "chemistry" they seemed to have with them (still NOT love btw, if we take in consideration how poorly Tengen's brothers treated their wives) and he chose Suma's sister alongside the others, yet Suma still crashed in. then Gotōge put a comma and added "it seemed she preferred both men and women".

technically, specifying that wasn't necessary, especially since Suma is married to a man. but can you see where this is going??? it was stated for a reason, and, even better, it was stated right after that sentence for a reason.

call me delusional or call it a headcanon, but the point stands, plus this silly bisexual woman lives every day of her life with 2 other pretty women and they're all a big family. I think it's valid to assume they kiss each other.

and homegirl took it personally🙏🏻 she defends polygamy but draws the line at polyamory and queerness, the irony🩷 also, she's christian. I absolutely don't want to generalize but I see a pattern.

anyways, I don't want people to harass her or send her threats, I was just pissed off by her immature behavior but hey, she was the fuel for me to make this brief analysis which I thought was basic analytical skill😭 this Fandom never fails to cross a line I never even knew was there🤞🏻

[biracy]

abt your post abt bi women belonging in the wlw community just as much as lesbians : i was reading the replies and youre so right abt how ignorant people are abt what comphet really is. im a lesbian and like yea i think we would experience comphet in the most intense way since were not attracted to men in any level, but comphet isnt only abt that, its a symptom of the patriarchy forcing women to center men in their lives and hell even straight women experience comphet, let alone bi women. people just have thrown around the word comphet so much they dont even know the true meaning

I was actually gonna post abt this soon LMAO so yeah!! I think it's also a misunderstanding of what "heterosexuality" as a dominant social force is to say that lesbians who are not attracted to men can experience "comphet", but bisexual women who are attracted to men cannot experience it. "Heterosexuality" as it is defined by dominant social forces is not only "a relationship between a man and a woman" - it's almost always a relationship between a "masculine" man and a "feminine" woman, and quite often a relationship between a man and a woman that results in monogamous marriage and childbirth. When people write about comphet, they're not talking about how movies and TV and fairy tales and children's books and my parents and my teachers and my religion all came together and told me to want to fuck genderfucky bi guythings. There is a specific kind of man centered in the heterosexuality enforced onto women, and a specific kind of role that a woman is expected to take on in that heterosexuality. I think the idea that bi people (women especially) cannot experience "comphet" overlaps a lot with people who believe that all bisexual people have the capability to become "straight-passing" if they enter different-gender relationships, which is in and of itself based on, in my observances, the belief that "gay/lesbian culture" and "bisexual culture" are completely distinct and that bisexual people are in some way innately less capable of being gender-nonconforming (or as some Tumblr scholars will call it, "visibly queer"). Bisexual people often date each other, we're often trans and/or visibly gender-nonconforming, and that's not something that we can just turn off the minute we enter into a quote unquote "heterosexual relationship." I'm bisexual, I'm nonbinary and id as both a man and a woman (so I take part in all these "sapphic" conversations etc etc u know the drill), I'm weird and kinky and switchy, I'm polyamorous, right now I'm dating a cis butch bi girl and a trans + nonbinary pan guy. At this point in my life I have absolutely no interest in relationships with cishet men, I don't want to get monogamously married, I never want to have children. I have not performed heterosexuality any better than, idk, a "gold star lesbian" has, and I FEEL it, I'm given shit for it, every relative I have pressures me already about boyfriends and grandkids and whatever. I do think there are bisexual people sometimes who do conform more to Straight Society but a) I think there are an equal amount of gay guys and lesbians who conform to Straight Society tbqh and b) it doesn't cover the breadth of bisexual people who do exist and who do feel the pressure to conform to the mainstream, dominant social system of heterosexuality and who CANNOT conform to it any more than you, anon, probably can. So yeah TL;DR bi girls can definitely experience "comphet" lmao and people are probably gonna hate that I said that

[deathlygristly]

I've always thought of the word "empathy" as meaning "thinking of other living beings as real alive people with their own thoughts and feelings and desires and needs." I've realized recently that a lot of people on the internet use it to mean something more like "feeling the same exact feelings as someone else, often if not always at the exact same time they're feeling it."

Like for me empathy leads to the conclusion that all living beings are of equal infinite worth. Whereas a lack of empathy leads to seeing living beings in a hierarchy of worth and thinking it's okay to hurt the ones who are lower on the hierarchy. It also leads to not seeing others as individuals and assuming that other people are just kind of cardboard cutouts of your own projections and categories and immovable assumptions.

Like with my current mental bugbear: a lack of empathy means "Oh, everyone else has the same experiences and beliefs and desires that I do, and if they don't they're wrong. Everyone should live the life I want to live." So with the marriage and kids and age thing, people who lack empathy will insist that everyone should live the same way they want to or that their particular social group says is the correct way or whatever, instead of just accepting that other people are different and that's okay.

For me empathy doesn't mean I feel the exact same feelings as the person who wants to have kids or who wants a big conventional wedding or who never wants to get married or who is polyamorous or who is aromantic or who doesn't want to get married until they're 50. For me empathy means understanding that other people aren't me, that they have different feelings and experiences and desires, that I will never feel the exact same feelings that they do, and that it's perfectly fine for them to make different choices than I've made and live differently than how I live.

Is there a different word I should use for that to be more understood and more able to understand online discourse?

[thecloneroom]

Been very tired lately so art has been slow, so here is a quick one, explaining the oa's insane marriages and family structures.

The oa live in tribes of between 20-100 individuals. They're usually matriarchal, led by a single older woman, or sometimes a small group of older women. Women typically live in the same tribe their entire lives (though tribes can split if they get too big). When men come of age they will leave their birth tribe and find a new tribe to marry. And I do mean that in the sense that a man marries an entire tribe. They are highly polyamorous, with everyone having multiple spouses. When a man joins a tribe, any women who is of marriage age at the time of his joining are his wives. Likewise, once a woman comes of age, any men who join the tribe after that point are her husbands. People can have sexual and romantic relationships with any of their spouses.

Image 1 is a general family tree. It's shown from the perspective of E, who is currently a child, but everyone would have these sorts of relationships. Since women can have relationships with multiple men at once, usually one's mother is the only parent known for certain. Therefore, when a woman has a child, all of her current husbands are equally considered the father and all perform parental duties. This means that men will have a large amount of children, and most children have several fathers. Therefore, in this family tree men are grouped together and treated as a single "father unit".

Things to note are that F, who is labeled as E's sibling, is likely to be a half-sibling, but socially they are treated as full siblings since they share a mother and a father group. Women D and B are unrelated, however they largely share the same husbands, therefore their children are considered at least distantly related through sharing a father group (and therefore have the potential of being half-siblings).

It should also be mentioned that E might have uncles of their mother's side and definitely has paternal relatives, however those people aren't shown because they're in another tribe. The oa in general don't give much of a shit about their father's side of the family or in-laws (since if they did, families would get so much more complicated than they already are). They also don't put much emphasis on male relatives other than fathers and brothers.

Note that if any of the children here are boys they will leave this tribe when they reach adulthood.

Image 2 is relationships of a married man. When a man joins a tribe he's married to all the women who are of marriage age at that time. This means that young men will be married to pretty much all the women in the tribe, while old men only have a few wives remaining. If any of the man's wives have children after than point they're considered his children (regardless of if they're genetically related or not). Any children his daughters have are his grandchildren and so on. Not shown in the image but when a man joins a tribe any existing children who are underage are considered his step-children.

Image 3 is the relationships of a married woman. Young women will only have a few husbands, but as they get older they will gain more and more husbands as more men join the tribe. Old women will be married to nearly all the men in the tribe. A woman's fathers are basically any men that her mother is married to but she is NOT married to. Her grandfathers would be the fathers of her mother and so on.

As a few further notes. All these diagrams are heavily simplified, real tribes would be far more complex with many overlapping generations. Also, this sort of family system is common but not universe, some cultures do things differently, but this is considered but most basic system.

[findyourflame]

very minimal changes for our princess cat but!! enough changes to warrant a ref

headcanons beloooow~

Blaze, getting older and older, seems to be growing more impatient in finding a suitable suitor (or more) to further her bloodline and foster her kingdom. She has a genuine connection and duty to preserve her kingdom, and wants to bring in only the best to be members of the royal family through marriage.

She's not very good at understanding jokes or sarcasm, to the degree of attempting those things under the genuine belief that people mean those things genuinely. People have tried explaining it to her, it's never stuck in her head.

Because of the importance of the relics in her dimension, she's incredibly stone faced and stern when it comes to discussing the powers of the universe and the objects that hold such powers. When the others suggest potentially dangerous ideas for using the Chaos Emeralds, she gets on edge, considering that the term 'chaos' is part of the shtick with those gems.

Blaze is an equal opportunity lover, aka pansexual and polyamorous. She uses she/her pronouns but doesn't understand why it matters aside from the usefulness of referring to people without using their names.

[1997thebracket]

Round 1A

Romy and Michele's High School Reunion: Do you have some sort of business woman special? Sandwiched generationally between Clueless and Mean Girls, 1997's Romy and Michele's High School Reunion was a marriage point between the visual-heavy valley girl comedy of the former and the feminine food chain breaking of the latter for a slightly older audience, sporting equally memorable fashions and spouting equally quotable dialogue as its sisters. The movie follows underachieving best friends Romy and Michele who, upon receiving the invitation to their titular high school reunion, hatch a plan to impress their former classmates the same way we all have or will one day: lying. (About inventing Post-Its!) As a film, Romy and Michele never takes itself seriously, and produces character gold anyway. There is no struggle to balance the radiant chemistry between the girls with the irreverence of the script, and it doesn't expend energy on redeeming school-age relationships that have no place in their adult lives, instead embracing the pure feverdream fantasy of telling a bully to get fucked via an impromptu choreographed dance number with bisexual icon Alan Cumming. The three then exit in a helicopter to... seemingly have an open polyamorous relationship? At the very least, the epilogue implies billionaire Alan lets the girls findom him. It is the only ending the movie deserves. (Now, would you excuse me? I cut my foot before and my shoe is filling up with blood.)

The DVD Launches in America: It's March 24th, 1997, and as a nation we're starting to get a bit bored of award shows (the more things change, the more they stay the same.) Viewership is down for the 69th Academy Awards, hosted by Billy Crystal; The English Patient is absolutely clearing house and winning Best Picture, but critics would later say that sucked the life out of the room and left a dull atmosphere to hang. During the event, though, something long-delayed is coming to pass, and it'll ensure a spike in viewership for every film that takes home an Oscar moving forward: the DVD is being launched in the United States. Development of technology and the production process to follow can take decades and stagger public access for years, which made the life of the DVD for those behind the scenes feel ages longer than it would actually reign-- but while it reigned, it reigned. For those of a certain age, it's hard to believe the DVD had the keys to the kingdom primarily from '97 to '06 when the Blu-Ray would step onto the scene to mixed success, but split consumer attention with risingly-accessible digital purchases and streaming. By no means is the DVD dead today, it simply enjoys a different life on the shelves of collectors; it is not quite a nostalgic media format yet (as the VHS tape became) but generally exists in a space between what is current and what is retro. The value of owning physical media is gaining recognition in the corporate streaming age, and the DVD has emerged as the face of this above all formats.

[gwenthebard]

You know it might just be me or just experiences putting a bad taste in my mouth, but I really fucking hate "marriage will hold up in court, so important over qpr and polyamory to do" Because like, yeah, marriage has a lot of important benefits and legal things. But, I hate it usually comes back to "thus you should perform marriage, rather than have an unconventional relationship," rather than, "it's fucked up how our culture and society prioritizes monogamous romantic relationships over anything else"

Like this isn't to say that getting married doesn't have benefits, or has important legal shit going on. This is to say it's fucked up how marriage is prioritised and structured.

Because like, marriage isn't just a contract it's not just a legal state. It's culturally a monogamous and romantic structure that is seen a very specific way. It's something where it can mean different things to different people, and there are people who can marry platonically or still have non-monogamous relationships, but not everyone and often not in the same way

The way it changes outside perception culturally is huge, and something where deviating outside the norm is looked on badly. The way language works, it automatically tries to put the idea of married couples on a higher plane. Literally look at any polyamorous couple in media or history that ends up being "married couple still involved with others".

Three people will live together their entire life, exchange shows of love even if not rings, and people will still be like "husband x and wife y, and their girl/boyfriend z". For a lot of people that's fine, but it's also a point on how outside perceptions can look on the relationship. These people could all love each other equally, literally refer to each other as spouses in cases, but because they lack a legal connection even with this knowledge people will still try to downplay an aspect of the relationship

I feel like this especially bothers me because like, I grew up when gay people were starting to become commonly accepted but before same sex marriage was legalized. And like, literally the same arguments against polyamory and queer platonic relationships I see are what I was told about gay marriage.

It wasn't legal to get married as a gay person in my state until 2014. That is most of my life, and I grew up in the 2000s where like the idea of being gay had some more acceptance. Still, I straight up had even teachers tell us it was a bad idea to be gay, because you couldn't get married

In like, Elementary School and Middle school, barely knowing what gay was in the former case, teachers would say this. We had a discussion in like 6th grade where it got brought up how if you got into a same sex relationship it was probably a bad long term thing because you wouldn't have benefits of getting married one day. Like not as a "this is wrong and something that should change," way, but as a fucking warning against relationships

I think this is why the idea leaves such a bad taste in my mouth, because this is the same shit I hear now about polyamory or QPRs. "it won't hold up in court," "you'll not be able to make medical decisions or stay with kids," "you can get fired without recourse" and just like,

This is the same shit I got told about being gay as a kid and early teen?

Why is it more important to uphold the monogamous and romantic structure of marriage, rather than accept that there are different relationships?

Like, yeah, it's fucked up how this stuff won't stand in court or how there's so few protections. Doesn't mean I'm not polyamorous, it makes me mad there's not a recognition of it. It makes me mad Queerplatonic People need to adapt romantic institutions to fit their non-romantic relationships.

Saying Marriage doesn't need to be romantic or as a "love you the most" institution also just, kinda ignores the complete culture around it? Like, yeah, on paper it's just words and it's just a contract, but that's not changing how people see it. That's not changing the fact I'd find myself hard pressed to ever want to actually marry someone on paper, because I don't like the cultural implications of it in the modern day

This isn't trying to say marriage isn't an important thing to a lot of people, and it definitely is. Marriage equality is important, and right now it's a big deal for disabled people who often aren't allowed to get married without losing a lot of support. The thing is though, why the fuck is marriage the most important thing in our culture?

why aren't there more options for people to declare the same intent otherwise? Why is society building so many benefits around an institution is upholds culturally as "monogamous and romantic" and looks down on for deviating outside? Like it's fucked up is what it is, not an argument for marriage as a consolation

Angry rant brought to you by: me seeing the exact same argument against non-monogamous non-romantic ( even just relationships-not-wanting-to-marry) relationships as I heard against gay ones in the era of "more accepted, not legal" and seeing red

[scarlet-rosepetals]

I’d like to add some thoughts on this because, while I agree overall, I find the “custody case” example to be an odd choice. There are absolutely judges who will happily and freely rule against gay and trans people in custody cases, and perhaps they’ll get more pushback for that, maybe, depending on where they are and who they’re targeting, but it feels like just downplaying the oppression others face to prove a point. Also, if you want an example of queer oppression more specific to polyamory, marriage is right there.

Polyamorous people legally cannot marry who they love, because campaigns for so-called “marriage equality” that uplifted other queer people left us out, often explicitly! This is what it means to include or exclude polyamorous people in queer activism; I was excluded from this part of queer activism and the consequence of that is that I can’t legally marry more than one of my partners. It fucking boggles me that anyone would try to say that’s not me experiencing oppression.

If you want a good starting point for including polyamorous people, that’s a perfect place to start. Stop talking about “marriage equality” as a system where any one person can marry any one other person. Stop saying “we won’t have real marriage equality until people on disability can get married without losing their benefits” as if there are no other groups of people excluded from marriage (though please do keep talking about how the institution of marriage oppresses disabled people that’s also important). Consider that we deserve to have our love recognized too, and if that radically changes the entire system then so be it.

Okay so, in honor of pride month, I want to talk to you, my fellow queers about 1) if you are not polyamorous, including us in your queer activism, and 2) if you are polyamorous, insisting on being included in queer stuff. Poly people are queer. I don't care if you only date the opposite gender and you're otherwise not queer. The same applies to hetero trans people, hetero aces, hetero aros. And the way polyamorous people can lose their jobs, their children, their reputations if it becomes well-known that they are poly is very queer, and in some ways, still more marginalized than other queer people (just talking about, for instance, a custody case for children... even now, I like to think that no judge who valued their career would, at this point in time, rule that a gay or trans parent is inherently a bad parent because they are queer, whereas MANY judges would happily and freely rule against a parent who was openly polyamorous).

I came out as queer to my parents when I was sixteen. I still haven't told them I'm poly. I'd sooner tell them I'm genderqueer and trans than I would that I have been in a relationship with two people I love very much for over a decade.

...I do recognize that the old poly flag is bad. The color grading, the weird pi symbol, the harshness of the colors... I always hated that thing. I am here to bring you the good news of a new poly flag, that is not JUST the boring stripe patterns of queer flags (which I do have a major beef with, we could do anything and we just choose stripes? we're better than this), but is so much more visually appealing than the previous version. I present to you the new polyamorous pride flag:

GOOD COLORS! GOOD DESIGN! DISTINCT! IMMEDIATELY RECOGNIZABLE! REPLICABLE COLORS IF YOU WANT TO MAKE PRIDE MERCH OUT OF IT! Let's have a round of applause for the polyam flag design team, because they knocked it out of the park.

In conclusion, polyamorous people are queer, please do not leave us out, also our pride flag is cool as fuck and I want a sweater in these colors.

[dhampiravidi]

from .leneemusing

INTIMACY  &  RELATIONSHIP  PREFERENCES  GUIDE (  as always,  repost don’t reblog  ) for Kylie Landry/modern!Achilles

for multiple choice sections:  bold for always,  italics for sometimes,  bold & italics for especially likes,  strikethrough for never,  no emphasis for neutral or n/a remember:  “top” means the one penetrating,  “bottom” means the one being penetrated.  positions will be specified as such.

ROMANTIC ORIENTATION: panromantic (man-leaning)

SEXUAL ORIENTATION: pansexual

SEXUAL ROLES:   dominant.  submissive.  versatile.  

PENETRATIVE PREFERENCES:   he loves it, receiving & giving.

DOES YOUR MUSE USE A STRAP ON?:   nah; he prefers people using their natural stuff because he likes the warmth--so it's a dick or a tongue going inside him (unless your toy warms up). that's all.

POSITIONS AS A TOP:   being ridden (thighs).  missionary.  lotus.  doggy.  flatiron.  legs on shoulders.  standing up.  standing while partner sits on surface.  spooning.

POSITIONS AS A BOTTOM:  riding.  missionary.  lotus.  doggy.  flatiron.  legs on shoulders.  standing up.  sitting on surface.  spooning.  

SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS:  monogamous.  polyamorous.  open.  swinging.  hook-ups.  platonic.

ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS:  monogamous.  polyamorous.  open.  casual. committed.  

RELATIONSHIP ROLES:  dominant.  submissive. equal. nurturing.  being nurtured.  monetary provider.  monetarily dependent.  shared monetary burden. independent monetary responsibility.  manages household.  shares household management. prefers independent living spaces. likes having household managed by partner.

THOUGHTS ON MARRIAGE: he could see himself marrying 1 or 2 people, then still having some other people he occasionally sleeps with. but he'd have to be really committed to the people he's marrying, otherwise just dating would be fine.

DOES YOUR MUSE GET JEALOUS/POSSESSIVE?: haha, yes. you might have to pull him back before he starts a fight (or makes out with you to assert his dominance w/in the environment).

DOES YOUR MUSE LIKE POSSESSIVE PARTNERS?: yep! though he never tries to make his partner(s) jealous.

DO THEY LIKE DOM/SUB ROLES IN ALL ASPECTS OF RELATIONSHIPS? (i.e. dom’s responsibility both sexually and in life is to take care of the sub and look after them. sometimes utilizing sexual and nonsexual rewards/punishments to incentivize them to carry out self care or other responsibilities): he might need some taking care of to get out of his really bad gender dysphoric days/headspace. & he likes to be teased ("do that again & I'll have to punish you"). but other than that, he wants to be treated as equal to his partner(s) outside the bedroom.

WHAT DOES AFTERCARE LOOK LIKE TO THEM?: cuddles, kisses & praise. he wants to worship his partner(s) because he feels like they've just worshipped him (especially if he's been wrecked).

WHAT ARE WAYS THEY PREFER TO BUILD EMOTIONAL INTIMACY?: he doesn't have a very big inner circle, so if he expresses devotion in ANY way (especially by spending quality time with you), he really likes you. that being said, he mostly prefers to show love via words of affirmation, for his friends, family & lovers. he prefers to receive love via physical touch; he's a very physical person in general.