#most people who are celibate as we tend to think of it are doing so for a specific reason

[lnkedmyheart]

I mean I am one of the few people who genuinely did not care for Keith Allura endgame at some point past season 2. As cute as I found them in the pod escape moment I don't really see the chemistry or any kind of grounds to truly connect on for them past the tangential ones and Keith is too fixated on Shiro for the first couple of seasons. I genuinely loved the Allura Lance development in later seasons with Lance growing into a better person and genuinely falling in love with her. I also feel like historically Allura and Keith have had a very slapped together relationship in 2 of the 3 previous iterations (I greatly prefered Lance and Allura in the og one because i genuinely dislike the celibate hero who never shows interest in the girl vs the girl loves the guy but they still end up together trope).

I did however enjoy the shallura and sheith dynamic as well and I feel shallura could have been a decent path to go down at some point but hey, I'm not gonna complain about my baby boy being queer rep. It's time we get non stereotypical rep for gay men.

I agree the whiney Keith part of the fandom is odd but I have arguably not seen enough of that in fanfics in general. I think I learnt to avoid those kind of fics early on since a lot of people who write those are generally younger people who project onto specific characters and you can usually tell within a couple paragraphs if it's that kind of fic. Most of the content I have read has been pretty in character for the most part. I also moved in Shiro lover circles so...

I would argue that Keith suggesting leaving Allura behind is harsh but also not...wrong. Not in the sense that they should have left her but Keith is capable of making difficult choices unless he himself is compromised (aka struggling with Shiro's loss). Even Allura agreed that they should have left her behind. Shiro is for all his groundedness, an idealist. He wants to protect everyone, even at the risk of making things worse for himself. Shiro the hero is right, he is your main heroic archetype, always save the people, always fight for justice, against all odds. Keith leans more realistic in that you make hard morally ambiguous choices in war and it's not like Keith has much of an understanding of war/this specific conflict like Shiro and Allura do. But yes, Keith is single minded and prone to rash decisions, he's definitely not as bad as that. For one Pidge absolutely deserved a chewing out for trying to ditch the crew in the middle of a war and Keith was right, everyone barring Lance and Hunk was dealing with some kind of loss. Mind you, at this point they did not know that the Lions would even pick another Paladin. Shiro imo was being way too lenient and probably still dealing with the guilt of having left the Holts behind and being saved instead. I do dislike the fact that Keith stopped being pragmatic and became Shiro the Hero point dos. It would have been a good comparison of how both are genuine ways of being in the middle of a war. But oh well.

I'm not really in the Keith defence squad. Lord knows I have issues with some of the Gary Stu crap that came later. But i do think sometimes we tend to expect too much from an isolated, socially inept, orphan with life long abandonment issues as he is navigating through a war in the early seasons.

I want to talk, for just minute, about the amount of self-disparagement in Shiro's statement, here. He's grievously injured, ailing, and trapped in a tiny cave with creatures lurking outside, waiting for their next opportunity to attack him.

Despite this, he's been repeatedly assuring Keith that he's "all right", and inquiring after Keith's well-being whenever he hears Keith struggling over the comms. Then, Keith expresses his belief that Shiro's presence and influence changed his life, and Shiro agrees. On the grounds that he's actively made Keith's life worse.

Keith's response to this extremely concerning assertion?

Nothing. He hears Shiro cough, tells him, "Stay with me, Shiro," and that's it.

This is an example of exactly what I mean when I say that Shiro has no support system. His best and closest friend hears him say something seriously disconcerting while in a state of utmost vulnerability, placing all of the blame for Keith's current predicament on himself, which is objectively not true, and does nothing to refute him. No, "Hey. Stop beating yourself up. We're gonna be just fine". Or, "How could this possibly be on you? Did you purposely eject us from the Castle?". Or even, "When we get out of here, we need to talk about why you feel like you don't matter and something completely out of your control is your fault. It's not like you asked to be here, either."

Maybe I'm expecting too much from a young adult with his own trauma whose interpersonal skills have already been shown to be lacking. I know I expected too much from a team of showrunners who believed that dark content automatically equals mature content, and insisted on shoving as much disturbing subject matter and questionable to outright deplorable messaging as they could manage to get away with into a series aimed at children. Shiro was never meant to heal from his trauma. The intention was to kill him to pave the way for Keith to take his place as The Chosen One.

But, in this fandom's determination to woobify their favorites to the extreme based on said favorites' moments of insecurity, they seem to have forgotten that the most blatantly traumatized member of the cast is the most blatantly traumatized member of the cast. Self-loathing and passive suicidal ideation are every bit as much a part of that as Shiro's flashbacks and the fear-induced paralysis that seizes him when a repressed memory resurfaces from the dark corners of his mind to drag him under. And, he, too, deserved all of the sensitivity, care, and love that they believe their favorites do, which makes it all the more abhorrent that he was repeatedly denied it in this show's canon.

[peach-pot]

Honestly I can take the other definitions but, “not caring to act on attraction” just seems like celibacy. Imagine if we called people who felt romantic feelings but didn’t want to be in relationships aromantic instead of just “people who didn’t want to be in relationships”. Does the fact that they’re “functionally” asexual (ie meaning they’re not looking to have sex) mean that the label of asexual fits the kind of experience/treatment they want from people in the future anyway? Asking in good faith.

I think that if someone who experiences sexual attraction but has no interest in acting on it, in good faith identifies as asexual, they should be taken as such. I’m in the business of trusting people to know which terms will be most useful to them in describing themself and finding community.

My experience with asexuality includes many things. Here’s a short list of the ways it makes me feel outcast from society, driving me to find community with fellow asexuals:

Sexual attraction is viewed as an inherent part of the human experience, but it is something I cannot fully conceptualize, much less relate to and experience. Thus I am often deemed less human than my allo counterparts.

The society I live in is built around the idea that everyone desires and has sex, and often this means there is no place for me within certain areas of society.

Individuals and society as a whole treat those who have not had sex (for whatever reason) as less than and childish, so I am looked down upon by my peers for being asexual (and assumably never having had sex).

As someone who has occasionally desired romantic partnership, I am excluded from the world of romance because society deems romance and sexuality as inherently linked.

Now, not all of these points would necessarily apply to someone who experiences attraction but doesn’t want to act on it, but a lot of them would. And some of these points might not apply to even some asexuals who don’t experience attraction, like sex neutral and sex favorable aces. I’m sure there are also experiences some asexuals have that I don’t share.

At the end of the day, the asexual community, I think, should be a place for people who fall outside the allonormative, amatonormative societal model in terms of sexuality. If someone is experiencing sexual attraction, but does not care to act on it, they will have what I would be willing to define as an asexual experience. And if they deem it as such then I see no reason to exclude them from a community they could serve and be served by.

[maulfucker]

I saw you had a post where you thought abt Dathomirian culture and I was wondering if you had any thoughts on how specifically Dathomirian queer culture manifests. I'd like to come up with things myself but I don't actually know a lot in general abt Dathomir yet, so I want other opinions. I've got two ideas tho

-Dathomirian queer ppl call each other "family" like some queer ppl did in our world

-Trans men might like earn their horns thru hunting and using animal bones and stuff as their horns? Idk like I said I don't know much

Good question! I haven't actually thought that much about queer culture in Dathomir despite having a gay nightbrother oc,,

I think the calling each other family thing probably wouldn't work very well since they already treat their clan as family and call each other brother and sister even without blood relation, but I love the idea of trans nightbrothers earning their horns! Dathomirians as a whole seem to be pretty open to body modifications, with tattoos being so natural in their culture, so hunting animals to use their bones or teeth or something to produce "prosthetic" horns sounds very fitting. It could be a whole thing for both trans and cis nightbrothers, using the extra horns as a way to show off their strength. plus it opens up the possibility of nightbrothers implanting horns in whimsical shapes such as smiley faces, stars or penises

I think as a people composed of multiple isolated communities, there's probably not a uniform queer culture across the planet. But also as people who tend to live in single-sex communities they are likely far more queer on average than what we see in the rest of the galaxy, like how cowboys were famously queer. They supposedly spend most of their lives around the same gender, so it wouldn't be unusual for that to be the gender they express attraction to more often. Though, much like how cowboys have been "reinterpreted" as a symbol of straight white masculinity, there's probably also a popular misconstruction of their culture as extremely straight, and/or extremely celibate. The "Nightsisters rule over Nightbrothers" reading of their culture is very obviously meant to show them as a reverse-sexist society, making the nightsisters a sort of "girl power" icon — they are strong independent women who can pick any man they want (implying that they do want men), which is like saying cowboys are strong fearless men who woo every damsel that crosses their path. which. sure, cowboys did have sex with women. sure, nightsisters do have sex with men. but more often than not they will be around other nightsisters, so they will more often than not have relationships with women (even if they're not really gay).

but I am not usamerican and my brain has the consistency of molten ice cream, so my knowledge of american cowboy culture is. basically just that. (the brazilian cowboy culture is quite different, especially considering there's like three distinct cowboy "sub"cultures, each with their different history, territory, and associations) So that's as far as I can take the cowboy comparison, but cowboys can be a pretty good source of inspiration I think. maybe look into that?

A quick look into medieval monasteries (another famously gender-segregated culture) says they were also pretty gay. And that the sexual persecution that is so commonplace in christianity today was not really a thing yet back then, which is also something to consider when trying to conceive the queer culture of a people who have nothing to do with our modern (overwhelmingly christian) society — do they have a reason to reject queer people and relationships, or are we just projecting our own worldviews and experiences onto a people who have none of the sociohistorical context that shaped our experiences?

I think homosexual/romantic and even polyamorous relationships would be pretty normalized, since there's not really any reason to only accept hetero relationships if they rarely ever live in mixed-sex communities. That said, there's probably still some expectation of heterosexual activity, in the form of the Selection and its implied procreation purposes. Dathomir is a very isolationist world, so to keep their population stable they need to procreate, even if it "goes against" an individual's sexuality. And this is where I think polyamorous relationships have reason to be encouraged: if a nightsister or nightbrother who already has a partner takes part in a Selection, why not bring their partner(s) into the relationship as well and increase the likelihood of producing offsprings?

As for the gender side of queerness.... well that's probably A Lot more complicated than I have time to discuss here. The gender binary seems pretty enforced in their culture from what little we see, and their sexual dimorphism probably makes trans and/or intersex people stand out A Lot more

I've mentioned this before, but I headcanon that the skin color difference is not a sex-chromosome-bound characteristic, but instead a sex-hormone-related expression of pigmentation, like in some birds such as peacocks. Both males and females are shown to have a range of skin tones, but in females it manifests as grayscale while in males it manifests as a color scale from red to yellow. So intersex people might have colors that are in-between, or that don't "match" their apparent sex, and trans people who undergo their equivalent of hrt might slowly change skin colors over time.

As for how nonbinary people work.... well as someone who is from a latin american country and speaks a romance language, I would like to imagine their "nonbinary" is a lot like ours — there is no "neutral" gender, they simply play with their presentation to be between one and the other, leaning towards whichever one might be considered more "transgressive" at the moment.

I don't think trans people would be forced out of their clans for being a different gender than everyone else, but it's possible their role in the clan might change to something more "befitting" of their new gender I also think there's probably a lot more contact between different clans than just the Selection, so it's possible for people who decide to start over as a new gender to take one of these moments of contact as an opportunity to "visit" another clan and never come back.

..... aaand it's almost 2 am so I gotta hit post

[ospreyeamon]

gender in the sith empire

warning: contains stereotypes

Social constructs of gender (as opposed to people’s personal conceptualisation of their individual gender) are built around labour specialisation. While the exact number and understanding of genders vary between cultures, every culture has the two big clusters of “men” and “women”. “Women” can carry pregnancies and breastfeed children, “men” can’t. Because if nobody is producing children society will keel over foaming, “women” as a group specialise in forms of labour compatible with carting a toddler around with you while “men” specialise in the forms of labour that aren’t because “women” called dibs on the spinning. These forces are stronger in pre-industrial societies with high infant mortality; if your population’s replacement rate is 2.1, there’s more white-collar work you can do with a baby strapped to your chest, and agricultural advancements have freed up a workforce to be dedicated to professional childcare the genders lose much of their purpose.

A woefully incomplete chart of social genders. Other smaller gender clusters include celibate religious devotees, women who become men (eg. for inheritance reasons), men who become women (eg. for religious reasons), and eunuchs.

But that’s humans. Red sith have a second axis driving these labour specialisation clusters; some of them can use the Force and some of them can’t. I headcanon than while 99% of red Sith are Force-sensitive only around 45-50% have Force-adept potential. So, instead of two big gender clusters there are four.

Force-adepts can cultivate a very diverse range of skills; healing, precognition, enhancing personal physical capabilities, telekinesis, telepathy, animal taming, etc. Given just how broad this range is, I think it is easier to come at the question backwards. What can’t you use the Force for? Administration, accounting, writing, cooking and food preservation, creating detail-rich patterns in arts and crafts like mosaics, rugs, engravings, etc. Activities like spinning would be more difficult for most people to do using telekinesis than by hand so it falls into a similar class. So, I think that bureaucracy and crafts would be more associated with non-Force-adepts, while what we consider to be more physical work like construction, hunting, and soldiering are associated with Force-adepts, as well as healing and medicine.

So, maybe the red sith’s gender chart looks like this with a literate/miscellaneous crafts gender, a textiles/cooking gender, a foraging/poultry keeping/water carrying/maternal health and other internal healing gender, and a hunting/warring/construction/external injury treating gender.

These categories would vary by place and time. Different technologies are invented in different places, both Force-technique technologies and what we consider physical technologies. Advancements in Force-healing would likely be responsible for an early drop in child mortality and deaths in childbirth before the advent of germ theory. A green revolution leading to the reduction of labour required to produce an agricultural surplus results in fewer people in those occupations; ditto for an industrial revolution and textiles. This breakdown also ignores the tendency of families to work together in the same craft-business.

I think this gender framework could shed light on the cultural importance of hunting that keeps on popping up in people’s writing of the Sith. The Sith Empire is a post-industrial interstellar civilisation, millennia after the point where I would expect hunting to be a skill of great practical value. However, hunting being symbolically important as a gender-performance does makes sense.

We can also take a guess at some other stereotypes. In cultures with Dark-leaning Force-traditions, Force-adepts tend to be viewed as more passionate/emotional/intuitive where non-Force-adepts are more reserved/logical/analytical.

There are also smaller gender-clusters in addition to the big four; trans and intersex people exist and there are other factors that can induce the emergence of a social gender.

This has some implications for the demographics of the Reconstituted Sith Empire. If every citizen with the potential to train as a Sith must train as a Sith, then a solid 45-50% of the red sith population is being automatically drafted into what amounts to military service and obliged to face the deadly Sith Trials. Given this would dramatically increase the odds of dying an early death, the non-Force-adepts must face significant social pressure to become civilians rather than enlist in the military because their population will otherwise collapse.

This could serve as an additional explanation for why we see so few red sith in SWTOR. Most Imperial NPCs are Sith or members of the imperial military in some capacity. If half the red sith are off living quiet domestic lives somewhere players would be unlikely to run into them. The only non-Sith red sith we meet is Athelis Kallis with the diplomatic corps on Voss, where the Empire and Republic are not meant to be shooting at each other.

The red sith make up a much smaller portion of the Reconstituted Empire’s population than they did the Old Empire’s, so while I think the way the red sith model gender strongly influences the wider Empire’s culture of gender most Imperials being members of species with low prevalences of Force-adepts tends to compress the two Force-adept genders together. Especially since all Force-adepts in the Empire are legally required to become Sith.

So, as far as the Empire’s Force-blind human and red zabrak populations are concerned, Bunny’s joke about the three genders is pretty much on point.

[likeabxrdinflight]

Because it's holy week and easter is upon us, I kind of want to talk more about that story and what I think is the historical context that people really ought to understand about it. Because I think it's too easy to forget who the historical Jesus likely was and where he came from.

(this got so long and I'm not sorry)

I'm going to start off by saying this is coming from an ex-catholic who no longer believes in the divinity of Jesus. I'm only interested in the historical figure, who I believe was a man and only a man. I am, however, operating under the assumption that he and the key characters surrounding him did actually exist (this is the predominant historical view and so unless convincingly refuted, this is what I'm going with.)

So the historical and sociocultural context of the figure that is Jesus is that of Second Temple Judaism in the Roman-occupied land once known as Judea. This context matters because without these circumstances, there is no Jesus or anyone like him.

Now Second Temple Judaism was slightly different from the Rabbinical Judaism that exists today, because Second Temple Judaism was focused on just that- the Temple. This Temple was grand and beautiful, and was the center of Jewish worship in Jerusalem. But the Temple existed in a city controlled by Rome.

Now Rome took a somewhat...quid pro quo approach to its conquest. The Roman powers allowed the Jews to live and practice their faith and culture, but it was with the understanding that they not challenge Roman rule. Rome would assign a prefect to govern the area (enter Pontius Pilate), but Jewish authorities were allowed to maintain their roles as well- think figures like Herod Antipas, who governed Galilee, and the High Priests of Jerusalem. They were allowed to govern Jewish law and life, but it was with the understanding that at the end of the day, they were still answerable to Roman authority. As such, these figures tended to be more sympathetic to Rome, or at the very least, deferential to it. I'm certain they were not a hivemind and there were likely vastly differing opinions among them, but as a general rule, the Roman authorities were more likely to tolerate Jewish authority figures who at the bare minimum tolerated the occupation in return.

That, however, did not mean that the Jewish people did. And this is where figures like Jesus come in. Now, what we know about Jesus is limited, and most of it is coming from the most obviously biased sources in existence- the gospels. But if we take the gospels as at least possessing some elements of the true history, we can do some extrapolating. So during the Second Temple period, there were multiple schools of Jewish thought. There were the Sadducees, who favored Hellenization, the Pharisees, who resisted it (and later became the foundation for Rabbinic Judaism), the Zealots, which was largely a political movement aimed at freeing Judea from Roman occupation, and the Essenes, who were a mystic and fairly apocalyptic sect. Jesus probably started off as an Essene, or at the very least, he was heavily influenced by them. John the Baptist likely was as well.

I mean, let me describe some aspects of Essene practices and theology for a moment: they valued service to others and refused to own slaves, their priests were often celibate, they led communal lives, were quite peaceful and non-violent (only carrying weapons for self-defense), did not approve of expressions of anger, and believed in a coming apocalypse. So while there's no hard evidence that Jesus was ever an Essene...you can see the connection.

Notably, the Essenes believed that at the time of the apocalypse, God would establish a new Kingdom on Earth, in which evil (which was likely thought to be Rome and those who support it) would be vanquished and good restored. This was likely the foundation for Jesus' ideas about "the Kingdom of Heaven" as recorded in the gospels. Apocalyptic thinking in this time was a response to Roman occupation, those in power who enabled it, and the long history of conquest and oppression of the Jewish people in that region. You cannot separate Jesus' specific brand of apocalyptic thought from this very specific, very Jewish context.

Now, I don't think Jesus stayed purely an Essene, if he ever really was one (they had a long initiation process so it's entirely possible he never went through that formally). But I suspect that when he began his own ministry in Galilee, the faction that ended up following him was something of an offshoot of the Essenes that incorporated other Jews from other schools of thought (i.e., Simon the Zealot).

What exactly Jesus' followers believed and thought about him in the moment (never mind what Jesus thought about himself,) is likely lost to history. The only sources we have on the man and his followers come from several decades after his death. Some might have considered him a wise man and teacher. Some might have seen him as a mystic, or a healer. Others might have considered him a prophet. But I think it's undeniable that at least some believed him to be the Messiah.

And then Pilate crucifies him.

I can't imagine the trauma of watching a man you believed to be wise, and good, and holy, and possibly the Messiah of your entire people, be murdered in such a cruel and inhuman way. I can't imagine what that does to a person, and I can't imagine how specifically traumatizing witnessing or even hearing about a crucifixion must have been. This was one of the most brutal punishments ever created. It was psychologically torturous to the people the Romans occupied, and it was designed to be this way on purpose. The cruelty was very much the point, as it kept dissenters in line and scared the people into submission. It was so effective that Roman citizens themselves were not allowed to be crucified. Romans didn't talk about crucifixion, it was something so unspeakably horrific that the only way to tolerate its existence was to turn a blind eye and dehumanize the victims.

My point being, and I'll be bold enough to say this- I don't think Jesus ever rose from the dead. But I do suspect that stories about resurrection began to spread as a way of coping with this horrific trauma. Who knows how such stories began- perhaps those closest to Jesus developed hallucinations, or perhaps believed they saw an apparition of him, or someone they mistook as him- there's no way to know. It's possible it was all a lie meant to keep the message alive even when the man was dead. But who could blame them, after something like that? So the stories spread, and they must have given people who'd followed Jesus hope, and something to believe in. If Jesus didn't die after all, and he was still with them, then there was still hope that the Kingdom of Heaven would indeed come to pass- and the horror of Roman occupation would end. The Temple would be free and Jerusalem would once again belong solely to the Jews.

So the Jesus Movement continued to exist, and the message of Jesus continued to spread within the Jewish world- and it got a pretty wide reach throughout the Mediterranean. It is during this period that Paul's letters are written (y'all know Paul). Notably, Paul, who was himself Jewish and likely a former Zealot, documents some of the disagreements among the Jesus followers of the day. Most importantly, I think, is a significant disagreement he has with Peter, in which Paul advocated that Gentiles should be allowed to receive the message of Jesus without needing to convert to Judaism and be circumcised. Peter disagreed, and because Peter was...well, Peter, and had more authority within the movement, it's thought that in this period, most (but certainly not all) followers of Jesus were still Jews.

(like Peter I also have beef with Paul but that's another post).

...and then Peter and Paul are killed. And not 40 years after the crucifixion, the Temple is burned down by Rome after a Jewish revolt in 70 AD. And everything changes. The Essenes, Zealots, and Sadducees all disappear from the historical record following the destruction of the Temple. The Pharisees adopt a different approach to Judaism that is less centered around the Temple and more focused on the study of the Torah, which becomes Rabbinical Judaism. They had never believed Jesus (or anyone else from the Second Temple Period) to have been the Messiah, and why would they? Why would they ever listen to the followers of this one guy who got himself killed 40 years ago? Especially after the Temple burned. The idea that this guy was still the Messiah, no really we promise, would have sounded like total nonsense.

Meanwhile, the followers of Jesus begin to turn away from Judaism entirely. If Jesus really is the Messiah, then his message can't have been so specific to Judaism. It can't have been about the fall of Rome and a re-establishment of God's Kingdom on Earth. Look what just happened to the Temple. So they start evolving into what we know today as Christians, with Jesus positioned as a different kind of savior. So the two groups- no longer Pharisees and Jesus followers, but now Jews and Christians- splinter.

Paul's thoughts begin to dominate, Gentiles are incorporated more into the faith, and Christian practices begin to deviate more and more sharply from their Jewish origins. Different branches of Christianity develop, with significantly different ideas about who Jesus was and what he meant. This, notably, is the period in which the gospels are written, including the non-canonical ones. There are still some Jewish Jesus followers, but as time goes on, they too disappear from the historical record (and no, messianic "judaism" does not count, that's a modern invention). Eventually, it is only the Pauline version of Christianity that survives, which is the Christianity we know today (yes that includes all denominations thereof).

So a figure who started off as a Jew, teaching to Jews and speaking in a Jewish context about Jewish occupation and intra-Jewish theological conflicts, becomes the God of a group of Gentiles.

Primary source: From Jesus to Christ: The First Christians

[hopeididntscareyou]

maybe this isnt the best way to deal with things. i probably got this from my dad, but i tend to intentionally do things that i know that would hurt a person, not because i want to hurt them but because i care about them and for me "betraying" them would be the only way to save them. i sacrifice my reputation, even though i would look like the bad guy. even though people would hate and resent me. i dont really care that much about their feelings about me anyways. but ya, sometimes it happens. but im just doing it for their own good. so even though, yes i am running deception, i wouldn't say i am completely ethically corrupted as at the end of the day, i feel fulfilled that i do something good for the humanity.

also unrelated topic but i don't understand why people judge others negatively about casual sex. i have been a virgin for a very long time and i dont care if the love of my love has ever done casual sex. its not a redflag to me. no i am not someone who will sleep around but in my opinion there is nothing wrong with having sex with someone you're not in a relationship with as long as you're not hurting anyone or anything in the process. sex is a human experience that you can share with someone and for it to be good and ethical it doesnt have to require a romantic relationship. this is why the dating pool is bad. its so full of people playing RPG for sex because everyone are just conditioned by the society that the end goal is to find a LTR and build family and shit. I'm not even going to start with my antinatalism philosophical bullshit, so to keep it short i just wanna say that its not everyone's life's purpose to build a family. you can reproduce in your own means without creating a human offspring. you can leave an even more remarkable product on this planet by pursueing your passions instead and who knows you would even be remembered by so many generations unrelated to you for it. so many physicists, philosophers, scientists did great things by helping this world made sense and a lot of them died without partners/children. think of isaac newton, nietzsche, etc. i kinda went off tangent with that but back to my original topic, cant we just appreciate sex for what is it and stop associating it only with dating and reproducing? also, casual sex is not always meaningless. for most people it means nothing but for me its not. if i would have sex with someone it means its because i trust them, i'm attracted to them and i appreciate and respecte them as another human being. and in order for that to happen there should be a mutual connection. you have to build trust. its literally just like dating except i don't have any expectations that it will last forever, it just means i am trying to enjoy the present moment for what it is and not limiting myself due to society's test of morality. yes i dont require a commited relationship but it doesnt also mean i would be having sex with every man i get involved with. its not meaningless repetitive shit to me. to me it should be always special and a good experience and if its not then whats the point? i'd rather stay celibate then. but to be honest, one of the reasons why i have been a virgin for a long time is because i was scared people will get the wrong idea of me. but now that im in my mid 20s and old enough to have so many experiences being slutshamed even as a virgin, i dont give a fuck anymore. life is too short to let others opinions rule my life's choices. i realized, no matter what you do, ppl will say whatever they want but it will be always a reflection of their own character and insecurities more than yours. as long as i make myself clear about what i want out of something, then i dont worry about nothing. life becomes easier when you're more honest about yourself than to play stupid redpill mind games.

[gatheringbones]

[“Why not identify as bi? That’s a complicated question. For a while, I thought I was simply being biphobic. There’s a lot of that going around in the gay community. Most of us had to struggle so hard to be exclusively homosexual that we resent people who don’t make a similar commitment. A self-identified bisexual is saying, ‘Men and women are of equal impor- tance to me.’ That’s simply not true of me. I’m a Kinsey Five, and when I turn on to a man it’s because he shares some aspect of my sexuality (like S/M or fisting) that turns me on despite his biological sex.

There’s yet another twist. I have eroticized queerness, gayness, homo- sexuality – in men and women. The leatherman and the drag queen are sexy to me, along with the diesel dyke with greased-back hair, and the femme stalking across the bar in her miniskirt and high-heeled shoes. I’m a fag hag.

The gay community’s attitude toward fag hags and dyke daddies has been pretty nasty and unkind. Fag hags are supposed to be frustrated, traditionally feminine, heterosexual women who never have sex with their handsome, slightly effeminate escorts – but desperately want to. Consequently, their nails tend to be long and sharp, and their lipstick runs to the bloodier shades of carmine. And They Drink. Dyke daddies are supposed to be beer-bellied rednecks who hang out at lesbian bars to sexually harass the female patrons. The nicer ones are suckers who get taken for drinks or loans that will never be repaid.

These stereotypes don’t do justice to the complete range of modern faghaggotry and dyke daddydom. Today fag hags and dyke daddies are as likely to be gay themselves as the objects of their admiration.

I call myself a fag hag because sex with men outside the context of the gay community doesn’t interest me at all. In a funny way, when two gay people of opposite sexes make it, it’s still gay sex. No heterosexual couple brings the same experiences and attitudes to bed that we do. These generalizations aren’t perfectly true, but more often than straight sex, gay sex assumes that the use of hands or the mouth is as important as genital-to-genital contact. Penetration is not assumed to be the only goal of a sexual encounter. When penetration does happen, dildos and fingers are as acceptable as (maybe even preferable to) cocks. During gay sex, more often than during straight sex, people think about things like lubrication and ‘fit’. There’s no such thing as ‘foreplay’. There’s good sex, which includes lots of touching, and there’s bad sex, which is nonsensual. Sex roles are more flexible, so nobody is automatically on the top or the bottom. There’s no stigma attached to masturbation, and gay people are much more accepting of porn, fantasies, and fetishes.

And, most importantly, there is no intention to ‘cure’ anybody. I know that a gay man who has sex with me is making an exception and that he’s still gay after we come and clean up. In return I can make an exception for him because I know he isn’t trying to convert me to heterosexuality.

I have no way of knowing how many lesbians and gay men are less than exclusively homosexual. But I do know I’m not the only one. Our actual behaviour (as opposed to the ideology that says homosexuality means being sexual only with members of the same sex) leads me to ask questions about the nature of sexual orientation, how people (especially gay people) define it, and how they choose to let those definitions control and limit their lives.

During one of our interminable discussions in Samois about whether or not to keep the group open to bi women, Gayle Rubin pointed out that a new, movement-oriented definition of lesbianism was in conflict with an older, bar-oriented definition. Membership in the old gay culture consisted of managing to locate a gay bar and making a place for yourself in bar society. Even today, nobody in a bar asks you how long you’ve been celibate with half the human race before they will check your coat and take your order for a drink. But in the movement, people insist on a kind of purity that has little to do with affection, lust, or even political commitment. Gayness becomes a state of sexual grace, like virginity. A fanatical insistence on one hundred percent exclusive, same-sex behaviour often sounds to me like superstitious fear of contamination or pollution. Gayness that has more to do with abhorrence for the other sex than with an appreciation of your own sex degenerates into a rabid and destructive separatism.”]

pat califa, public sex: the culture of radical sex, 1994, 2000

[bleeding-star-heart]

Holy shit you're so right. I mean, the narrative insists Chantry brother! Sebastian is the 'better' choice for his character. What with him being more inclined to be a priest if you max out Friendship as opposed to Rivalry. But I've come to believe that Prince of Starkhaven! Sebastian is actually a much better choice for him. 1) Sebastian has SO much more potential to do good as Prince than he does as a Chantry brother. It's made clear that the Chantry is female-dominated. As a man, Sebastian cannot rise to the higher echelons of management; he can't even become head of the Kirkwall Chantry! Whereas as a prince, Sebastian has the ability to change and enact laws that could benefit AN ENTIRE CITY-STATE. And it's quite probable that Sebastian would at least try to. In his short story, he says he was 'kind to the elves', meaning that he believes they should be treated well. AND he's the only one of Anders's opponents to actually ASK Anders why he believes what he believes. (He doesn't agree with it, but the rest of Anders's ideological opponents don't even bother to ask the question).

2) The Chantry is not the squeaky-clean organization it frames itself as. If the Chantry were a real-life religion, it would be mired in controversy. The Exalted Marches and the fall of the Dales ALONE would earn the ire of most of the left. Then there's the historical revisionism, how it excludes all non-humans from the priesthood and only allows a certain gender to rise through the ranks. As for the mages...there would be MASSIVE protests outside the Circles DAILY.

While it may have helped Sebastian become a more responsible, less self-centered person, by DA2 there's nothing left to teach him. He's no longer an irresponsible cad; in fact, he's overcorrected when it comes to his sexuality. While he might genuinely spend his life doing good works in the Chantry, at the same time he has to tacitly endorse the extremely problematic things the Chantry does. And since its treatment of elves is one of those problematic things...Sebastian could end up in a situation where he either has to be loyal to the Chantry or kind to the elves. But he can't do both.

3) While Elthina MIGHT be a model of certain virtues, she's ALSO a model of incredibly dangerous passivity. In DA2, Elthina tries to persuade away from vengeance, which is all well and good. And in the short story, she also modeled compassion, understanding, and genuine piety. But in DA2 proper? She mostly tends to model the vice of sloth-by which I mean she passively lets Meredith perform a coup and Petrice stir up chaos with the Qunari. Both of which are pretty much the OPPOSITE of what a religious leader should do. I think we can all agree religious leaders should DISCOURAGE greed (Meredith) and wrath (Petrice) among their followers.

I don't think Sebastian needs to learn to become a passive person who does nothing in the face of injustice or wickedness. Not even the Chant of Light thinks that's a good idea. After all, there is literally a verse in the Chant which says: Blessed are they who stand before The corrupt and the wicked and do not falter. Blessed are the peacekeepers, the champions of the just. But 'standing before the corrupt and wicked' is NOT what Elthina models. Elthina doesn't stand before the wicked; she steps aside for them. All in all, returning to Starkhaven is better for him because rather than stagnate, he has the ability to apply the GOOD principles she taught him on a larger scale. He can use his newfound sense of responsibility to do right by Starkhaven's people. And while there's nothing wrong with celibacy and/or asexuality, Sebastian is explicitly stated NOT to be asexual. In the past, he slept around; he's only celibate now out of a sense of duty. As the prince of Starkhaven, he has the opportunity to find a healthy way to express his sexuality; a way that works for him. To be chaste, promiscuous, or somewhere in between because he WANTS to be. As opposed to celibacy that is DEMANDED of him.

To sum up: Elthina has, by DA2 proper, become an unintentional Mother Gothel to Sebastian.

Dear fandom,

Since you are all so invested in comparing Dragon Age characters to Disney-movie tropes, please consider the following:

Tangled, but with Sebastian as Rapunzel and Elthina as mother Gothel.

Why, you ask?

Well, if you paid just an ounce attention to Sebastian’s story-arc, surely, you too must have realized that each and every interaction between Sebastian and Elthina is basically a prolongued rendition of Elthina singing “Mother knows best!”

Thank you

[smhalltheurlsaretaken]

I know that you've written extensively about why forcing the Order to allow 'attachment' (which...99.99% of the time is either a misunderstanding of what that means and really just means "marriage is allowed") is not really Jedi positive (and I agree). I was wondering though, do you think there could be a way for fic to have the Order allow for marriage without totally disrespecting how attachment works in Jedi culture? I ask because there are married Buddhists and I have a few ideas how it may

Maybe.

I'm not familiar enough with Buddhism to comment on the real-world parallels here, but just from an in-universe perspective, there could be some wiggle room without disregarding everything that's established about the Force, how the Order works and why it works like it does. I can see two types of exceptions: - Jedi in situations like Kanan's (isolated from the Order, with his team as only support system, in a committed relationship - since there's no Order to be committed to - but aware of the risks; when feeling emotionally compromised, he asks other people to make the call, like Ezra in the mission to rescue Hera) - for a 'normal' Jedi in the 'normal' Order... intra-Order marriages. The way I figure this would work is that they'd be pretty rare and pretty regulated, but at least they've got a safety net in the form of all the other Knights and Masters who can point it out and step up if things aren't working out. They can be assigned to different missions when impartiality is needed and to the same when it's routine stuff and they work well as a pair.

Why just Jedi marrying Jedi? In an ideal case, both would be equally devoted to their duty, would understand that missions come first in daily life (so no arguments like 'you're never around for me, like Padm�� and Anakin had) and that innocent lives come first no matter what (so no sacrificing other people for your personal happiness). I mean, Jedi do have very close friends and other Jedi they consider family and that's basically how they treat those bonds. What's different imo about marriage is that you promise to your spouse to always put them first, which is incompatible with the same vow made to your duty as a Jedi - but if they're both Jedi it might be like they'd be both married to the Order (which in essence is what being a monk is) and to each other. Risky, but who knows.

We see that Jedi raised within the Order from a young age tend to do leagues better than Anakin where dealing with loss or duty is concerned, so I imagine it could, hypothetically, work sometimes.

Ironically enough, that's how Karen Traviss' Altisian Jedi went about it iirc (minus the carefully making sure it doesn't go horribly wrong because 'there's nothing wrong with love ever')? She's not what I'd call positively inclined towards the Order lmao. I also vaguely recall that those relationships she wrote about ended rather terribly. Then again, the main philosophy behind her Altisians was 'Jedi bad, being free and not participating in the war and having sex good.' But as long as that's not the underlying idea behind the fic, yeah, it can work 😂 I mean, it's fic. Almost anything can work.

I wouldn't want it to ever become canon - I prefer my Jedi celibate, tbh, I love that aspect of their characters (yesIknow in canon they don't have to be celibate, but from what we see most never choose to pursue a relationship and I love that about them and tbh I prefer no romantic relationships at all rather than flings) but if I had to write a fic that's how I'd do it. I don't know if they'd call it marriage though

[astrobydalia]

🌸OBSERVATIONS!! (finally lmao)🌱

Credit: Tumblr blog @astrobydalia

It's been a long time coming! So happy for spring being finally here! Here's the long ass observation post you guys asked for. Since it's quite a big amount of observations, I've decided it'd be a good idea to number them so that it's easier to reference them. As always, enjoy them!

🌸 1. Lilith in the 2nd house can indicate something fishy going on with the relationship between the native’s parents.

🌱 2. Malefic placements such as pluto, chiron, Saturn or Lilith in the 12th indicates a lot of skeletons in the closet when it comes to family and family history

🌸 3. Chiron in Aries/1st house or Leo/5th house is kind of bitch placement. The person basically feels like they can’t be themselves and there’s a lot of self-denial and/or not accepting themselves, how they really are, what they really want, etc. Lots of self-esteem issues

🌱 4. People with sexual placements in the 2nd house (Mars, Venus, Lilith, Eros, ruler of the 8th house) base their self-worth on how sexually attractive they are. If they don't feel sexually desirable to everyone, they feel like they're shit

🌸 5. Lilith is what people think Pluto/Scorpio is!!!! All that stuff about magnetic, sexual and intoxicating but dangerous? Lilith.

🌱 6. Scorpio/Pluto in 4th could mean that the person had to work hard to survive something growing up. It could be poverty, their parents’ expectations, an early trauma, etc. Whatever the situation is, the native felt like they grew up in a high-stress environment where they had to endure and survive

🌸 7. When it comes to degrees, the higher the degree, the bigger or stronger the effect. For example Leo degrees (5º, 17º, 29º) are fame degrees. 5th degree would give small fame, 17th degree would be normal and significant fame or recognition inside the person’s field and 29th degree is moreso widespread or permanent fame

🌱 8. Saturn in the 5th house is a huge indicator of turning your hobby into your job. Also these people can be very awkward in their personality

🌸 9. I’ve noticed people with Neptune in the 6th (maybe 2nd) house may have been hospitalized and if Uranus or Pluto are placed here also indicates getting surgery or operations for health reasons

🌱 10. People with Uranus or Pluto in the 1st, 2nd or conjunct the ASC could get surgery due to aesthetic reason

🌸 11. Mercury dominant people (or strong Gemini energy in the chart) like to have or get things quick and easy. For example they prefer a straight forward summary over an in-depth and elaborated explanation with too many details

🌱 12. Your moon sign shows how you see your past. Your 4th house represent how you see your childhood. But your moon represents under which light you always view your past and everything that has happened in your life in general. It also shows the type of stuff from your past you tend to focus on. Since Cancer and Pisces represent past and remenaicence, that's why Cancer and Pisces moons have trouble getting over the past.

🌸 13. Your 10th house on the other hand is how you see your future. Whenever someone asks you “where you see yourself in 5 years?” your 10th house is the one that’ll be answering that question

🌱 14. Gemini moon/mars are the LEAST likely to hold grudges (unless chart says otherwise)

🌸 15. The house where you have your Neptune indicates the themes you tend to lie about, don’t give much info, say stuff about it that are misleading etc. and in consequence people might not have a clear/correct idea of this part of your life

🌱 16. Virgo risings rarely or basically never pose for pictures. They just look straight forward to the camera, sometimes smile and maybe make a small gesture like putting one hand in their pocket or tilt their head but that’s it. (Virgo = minimalism)

🌸 17. Scorpios really don’t give a single fuck they just DON’T 😭💀 Remember this sign is all or nothing, they either care too or don't care AT ALL

🌱 18. I said it once and I’ll say to a hundred times more: Geminis are not two-faced, it’s LIBRA!! Seriously Libras are the FAKEST people I’ve ever met. Why? Because it's ruled by the planet of love (Venus), which means Libra has a knack for being liked by everyone and making everyone feel liked. HOWEVER Libra is an AIR sign and air represents mind, NOT feelings. In conclusion, Libra can make you feel "loved" (venus) and still not give a damn about you bc its air nature makes them prone to emotional detachment. That's why they are able to roast you and make it look like they're complimenting you, specially when they have Scorpio mercury.

🌸 19. Just like you look at where’s the ruler of your rising sign to get more info on your rising, check the ruler of your Sun sign for more info on your personal identity (check sign and house). For ex. I have Virgo Sun in the 9th. Ruler of Virgo=Mercury. I have mercury in Libra in the 10th house which makes me more serious (10th house) and diplomatic/people pleaser (Libra)

🌱 20. If you found that you “couldn’t” do what’s previously described because you’re a Leo sun, check the degree and decan of your Sun

🌸 21. I’ve noticed mercury retrograde people are the type of individuals who always know exactly the right things to say. You’ll always see them take a couple of seconds before answering but they tend to give very good responses

🌱 22. I’ve noticed many women with Virgo Venus/Sun/MC/Lilith have been slut-shamed at some point of their life or they’ve been seen as promiscuous/sexual/etc.

🌸 23. Capricorn moons are not emotionless machines. The thing with these natives is that their mothers treated them like an adult the second they came out of the womb, so basically they skipped the “love and affection” stage and went straight to the “grow up” stage, but they can love really hard and real deep (Capricorn is deep down a very sentimental sign). They are very ride or die people tbh, they are very patient, accepting and understanding

🌱 24. I've noticed that people at first deny their rising sign in Vedic astrology, but eventually they end up accepting it and they actually end up relating to it a lot. I feel like this is because our rising sign in Vedic astrology is usually the sign of our 12th house in Western astrology, which leads me to believe that our 12th house sign is not our shadow side but more like our deep subcontious personality and that's why we have a hard time accepting it when we see it as our rising sign in Vedic astrology. It's like your rising sign (in western) is the director of the play but your 12th house is the energy that previously wrote the script

🌸 25. So many celebrities have moon in the 11th house. Also this placement indicates that you had a mother that put you out there constantly like posting everything about you on social media, bringing you to big events or your mom was “famous” in some capacity

🌱26. Gemini risings tend to believe everything they are told. More specifically, once they find someone that knows a little bit more than them they’ll believe everything they teach them and will most likely rely on them intellectually, for advice, guidance, etc. This is bc they have DSC in Sagittarius which makes them see the people they associate with as masters and mentors while, as a Gemini rising, they identify as an apprentice.

🌸27. Both 8th house and 12th house have been associated with secrets. The different is that the 8th house represents what you CONTIOUSLY and deliberately hide from others and most likely deny to yourself (or not, depends on the person). 12th house on the other hand represents subconscious, things that are hidden even from you and you didn’t even know were hidden. 4th house is not necessarily secrets, it represents privacy, like when people have a sanctuary to just relax, unwind and feel secure, that’s the 4th house.

🌱28. Sun or Moon in the 4th house will make you a sociable but private person.

🌸29. Sun or moon in the 8th house will make you an intriguing and mysterious person.

🌱30. Sun or moon the 12th house makes you a very elusive or wishy-washy person

🌸31. I’ve seen many Scorpio sun/moon/mars/rising individuals obsessed with the idea of being prepared for a catastrophe. They could be the type to, for example, have some saved cash just in case something bad happens with their bank money, have a backup account just in case their main one gets deleted, could have a “leave before you get left” philosophy, etc.

🌱32. Is it just me or the astro community talks a lot about Aries moons???

🌸33. I’ve noticed people with 4th house in Virgo could have been raised in a very judgemental household where there was lots of taboos and prejudice as to what’s right and what’s not and the family was too preoccupied with a perfect and immaculate reputation. For example could have been raised with values such as “only criminals wear tattoos” or “you should stay celibate till marriage or else you’re a whore”, etc. and if the native broke those rules they could have been very criticized and almost loathed by the family. They native could have been highly criticized in general by their family

🌱34. I’ve noticed women that have their moon harshly aspecting Pluto, Uranus and Mars or overall have a very afflicted moon tend to have very painful period cramps

🌸35. Something I have noticed with Venus or Moon conjunct Saturn people is that the concept of unconditional love sounds like alien language to them. That of course doesn’t mean they can’t love but they have this deep belief that they have to achieve something in order to deserve love and stuff like that

🌱36. Also, I just noticed that people with Saturn conjunct sun/moon/Venus/ASC, Capricorn big 3 or Capricorn degrees in personal placements have gone through IT man, specially on an internal level. I've noticed going through depression is a common theme for people with this Capricorn/Saturn influence

🌸37. Virgo Suns could often struggle to find balance between having healthy ego and being humble.

🌱38. Also people with Virgo+Leo energy are the MOOOOST judgmental people out there. Imagine ego mixed with a sense of knowing what’s correct. They tend to believe they’re morally superior and easily liable people as inferior

🌸39. The underdeveloped energy of a sign asimilates negative traits of its sister sign. For example underdeveloped Virgo is overly perfectionist and judgmental to the point where they have unrealistic expectations (Pisces)

🌱40. On the other hand the developed version of a sign is balanced out by understanding its sister sign. For example Leo knows they are unique and special and deserves recognition but understands everyone is also unique in their own way (Aquarius)

🌸41. I’ve noticed a person can very easily manifest the stereotypical characteristics of the sign that naturally rules the house where their chart ruler is. For example if someone’s chart ruler (ruler of the ASC) is in the 7th house the person can easily manifest stereotypical characteristics of Libra like being a people pleaser

🌱42. Sagittarius ASC/Mars people are all fun, amicable and outgoing.... until they don’t get their way. They will get away from people and situations that won’t give them what they want and they can genuinely dislike people solely because those people don’t let them have their way. They tend to go around life like they have a free pass to get away with everything they want.

🌸43. People with ASC-Neptune aspects don’t have a very reliable vision of reality or themselves to be honest. I don’t know how people with this aspect haven’t lost their mind already. They are prone to subconsciously manipulating or easily getting manipulated. With hard aspects this is a lot more obvious but I’ve noticed with easy aspects this energy tends to go almost unnoticed and they easily get away with stuff

🌱44. Have seen many famous people with North node in the 2nd, 5th, 11th and 12th houses specially

🌸45. Air risings or air dominance with Sagittarius placements/degrees are people who love cartoons/animations/videogames regardless of their age.

🌱46. When I got into astrology I didn’t understand why Sun is in detriment in Libra, but oh man... All Libras I’ve met had HUGE issues with trusting themselves. They doubt themselves 24/7 and that’s not even an exaggeration and I’ve noticed they actually may have grown up doubting themselves for some reason or they had a family (their dad) that caused this feeling in them. Also I’ve seen that those Libras with Scorpio placements feel like they have to hide something about themselves otherwise they’ll be rejected. Yes they are endlessly charming, but that's because they have essentially created their personality around the desire of being liked/accepted. They always need to feel they have SOMEONE. Their sense of self, INDIVIDUALITY, independence and assertiveness is lost in the process. Unless they have fire and specially Aries placements to balance this out they can feel like they have no personality and that’s why they are often perceived as fake or shallow.

🌸47. Literally ALL Virgo placements one way or another will always suggest a way to solve your problems when giving emotional support

🌱48. I have a theory that, since 4th house is how you were raised, your home and your parents, your 10th house is how you’d be as a parent yourself and the type of home you’ll create yourself

🌸49. Contrary to my expectations, I’ve seen priests having a much more prominent 4th house (many times combined with 8th house/Scorpio energy) than 12th house. People with 12th house placements or stellium seem to prefer artistic fields rather than classic spirituality

🌱50. The house where you have your Pluto is a house you just can NOT take lightly EVER. This area of your life feels like a heavy topic to you in some way (you are either obsessed with it, find It traumatic, get extremely defensive over it, find it spiteful, you feel everything goes wrong, etc, etc.) Can also apply to the house where you have the sign of scorpio

🌸51. In synastry, Venus falling in the 12th house creates a healing dynamic in the relationship, the connection can feel cathartic specially for the house person. The house person might tend to always be comforted by the venus person’s support, always feel better (or even energetically “cleansed”) after being with them. The venus person never judges the house person and accepts them and is always willing to be there.

🌱52. I’ve noticed this pattern in people with mutable moons where they have absent mothers in some shape or form. Their mother is very inconsistent, she always comes and goes. Very often the native may have felt like their mother always “left them be” (virgo moon moms put restrictions but eventually are rather flexible)

🌸53. People with cardinal moons have bossy mothers. In many cases they can have the type of mother that is constantly making decisions for them, like their mother decides what/where they’re going to study for example (the house tells what type of things the mother tends to make decisions on).

🌱54. People with fixed moons have possesive and protective moms. While mutable moons have absent mothers, natives with fixed moons have mothers that are ALWAYS there in some shape or form. At the very least the influence of the mother is always there and they always have this sense of “loyalty” towards their mom.

Credit: Tumblr blog @astrobydalia

That's it for now, next observation post is just as long but much better, stay tuned and safe loves 💕

[sea-owl]

So I fell back into winx club again (s1-3 plus the movie, we recognize nothing else past that on this blog) and like I just have headcannons I've been wanting to share forever on Domino and a sorta Domino raised Bloom/an au specifically.

First before I get into it I honestly believe Bloom shared traits with the people of Domino but because every adult thought Domino and it's people were gone they just didn't put two and two together. After every person who knew Bloom before were like "You know that makes sense."

(Also how the hell did they make Domino disappear from everyone's mind in less than one generation? Even with the whole planet gone you can not convice me that there weren't others from Domino who just happened to move and not to add into the the possible relgion aspect of Domino. Which leads into my next point)

Domino would have been in my mind a sacred realm to those who worshipped/believed/celebrated the Great Dragon and the Dragon's Flame/Fire/Spark. Many would make pilgrimages to Domino like people on Earth do to Jerusalem.

Domino's royal family also always had at least two children, one to rule politically, and the other to be the spiritual leader. The spiritual leader would be the one with the strongest connection to the Dragon's Flame or the chosen host of the Great Dragon. They would hold that position until they died. Due to wanting to keep this within Domino the spiritual leader didn't often get married or if they did they had a long distance marriage. They didn't have to be celibate though, creating new life would be a big thing for them.

Domino used to be an absolute monarchy but over time has given power to a ruling government that can make decisions without the monarch, but the monarch still is the leader.

Dominions tend to have some dragon traits, though they don't always mean to do it. One of these being growling. They have different growls for different emotions. (This totally came from the realization on how much Bloom growls in the show.)

They also have a great relationship with dragons because they can communicate with them.

Traditional Domino dress uses shedded dragon scales sewn into the fabric or made into jewelry. The royal family's crowns imitate a dragon's horns.

Domino produces some of the most wizards, witches, fairies, and any other bame you can think of for a magic user due to Domino being the home of the Grear Dragon.

Most magic useing Dominions specialize in fire but they all have the ability to learn any type of magic in the natural world. This is due to the fact the magic to creat Domino was progenitor magic.

Onto Domino raised Bloom/an au that never left my head as a child.

In my mind the attack on Domino still happened but Domino went completely isolated after to recover/accidentally just letting everyone think they died

This was a decision made with in mind that one of their biggest allies had turned on them and they don't know why.

For the first 10 years of her life Bloom was taken to Earth with Daphne to hide while their parents made sure everything was safe enough for the girls to resume/start their training.

There they met Mike and Vanessa Peters who become like second parents to Bloom. (Or Vanessa is Oritel's sister who married an man from Earth and Oritel sent his kids there during those first years to protect them. Idk how I want to incorporate Vanessa and Mike yet)

Bloom is still the host to the Dragon's Flame so she's being trained early to be the spiritual leader, something her people desperately needs and the postion mother temporarily held during the war. She's trained by her mother and the priestesses of the Great Dragon.

She's still Bloom though she's still curious about everything and always dtf (down to fight). It's just worse now cause baby is more feral with just being around dragons more than people.

When 3 year old Bloom managed to convince a dragon to let her ride on it while flying Oritel and Miriam knew they were in trouble.

Bloom does have a need to help her people though and goes to them herself helping anyway she can.

This includes Bloom leaving Domino to go to Alfea.

It was a decision that weighed on Bloom for a long time. And it started by a comment Daphne unintentionally made. "We have to open Domino up again eventually. Let all the other realms know we're still here. But are we ready for it?"

Bloom took that to heart, she knew she wasn't ready but she was supposed to help her people through something like this, when everyone would be nervous and one wrong word could create mass hysteria.

Bloom remembers the school her sister and mother talked about fondly, how princesses and fairies from all different realms went. She remembers Daphne said it was good practice for diplomatic relationships.

"I want to go to Alfea," Bloom will announce one night.

Her family seems hesitant on letting her go.

"We have to open Domino back up eventually," Bloom reasons. "Let me start."

Oritel and Miriam agree and Bloom is on her way to the school.

She is not ready for the culture shock.

[nerdygaymormon]

uhhhh david have you gotten the liahona yet bc idk how to feel about an article i found in there yesterday. it was pretty comforting and basic, but did use ssa the whole time. BUT the youth one was pretty crappy, it used ssa to the max and gave no real hope, was pretty bland and annoying about oh itll be find just believe and jesus and get hatecrimed <3 i would like to hear your thoughts on it, its the first time ive seen any queer topics in church magazines

Thanks for bringing these to my attention.

"Same-sex attraction" (SSA) is the preferred term of Church leaders. They say it's a way of not making it your identity, that this isn't part of who I am but rather is something I'm dealing with. In other words, people "have" same-sex attraction, not that they "are" gay or lesbian or bi.

There have been a few leaks from behind-the-scenes where the apostles say they use "same-sex attraction" because it's the term that people like least. People like it less that same-gender attraction or gay/lesbian. SSA includes the word "sex" and I guess the idea is it gets people to think of sexual acts and feel queasy.

SSA is the term normally used in Church magazines because they follow the lead of the First Presidency and apostles.

There's 3 items in the Church magazines this month about queer people! That's a lot for one month.

————————————————————

The first is a bishop talking about how to understand and include LGBT people at church. After becoming bishop, 3 sets of parents contacted him distressed that their child is gay or transgender (I note that the parents used "gay." He also mentions contacting someone who 'identifies as gay").

His first recommendation is to follow the living apostles. (which explains why the bishop uses "SSA" even though everyone else around him used "gay"). It's a good idea for a local leader to find what the current leaders are saying because it's changed. He also says to read the Church's websites titled “Same-Sex Attraction” and “Transgender.” He provides two lovely quotes from those pages about diversity at church and being loving to people who are different.

His second recommendation is to not be afraid to talk to people who identify as gay, but instead try to have love for them and then let the Spirit guide you in what to say. We're just people, it shouldn't be scary to talk to us, that shows how different he thinks we are from the other people he interacts with in his ward.

The bishop's third suggestion is to speak to people who are familiar with LGBT "issues," share your testimony, and apologize for hurtful things you say. His list of people to contact for help understanding was a little disheartening because he starts with his stake leaders, ward leaders, other bishops, and so on, actual queer people were the last people on his list.

He continues by saying to pull aside members who are saying homophobic or transphobic things and give them some personal guidance, don't share private information that a member shares with the bishop, and just because someone has these "attractions" doesn't mean they're acting on them, and if they aren't "acting" on them then you can let them have a calling.

I have a few comments about the last few things. If no one corrects the homophobic/transphobic comments in public but instead privately suggests the person do better, every one who heard those comments thinks they stand unchallenged. The atmosphere created by the comments is unchanged. Especially if the bishop was present to hear those words, if they go uncontested then people think this is what is acceptable.

You'd think bishops know not to share private information a member shares with them. I've been around long enough to know that when a bishop is unsure what to do, he starts contacting his network (stake presidency, other bishops) asking for advice. Some bishops are discreet when doing this and others name the individuals.

While it seems basic, I recently had a counselor in a bishopric who didn't think gay people could get a temple recommend, that there's a zero-tolerance policy. That is an attitude that is outdated by a couple of decades, but it shows that people need to learn that simply existing as a gay or trans person doesn't automatically mean we are committing great sins.

I do find it interesting there appears to have been quite a few queer individuals in his ward, at least 4 or 5, and reading between the lines it seems they all stopped attending.

The bishop's heart is in the right place. I get he's following the Church leaders and that limits some of what he can do for queer people in his ward. I think his perspective primarily is of making the parents feel more welcome in the ward and not ostracized for having queer kids.

————————————————————

The second article in the Liahona is written by a person with same-sex attraction and his work to overcome the shame he felt.

It's a much better article than the one written by the bishop. This person shares about the shame they felt at having gay feelings and working with a therapist to overcome that shame. He shares 3 lessons that helped him with this process.

1) God and Jesus love and accept him as he is. This is a message that doesn't often get conveyed to queer members and it's important they know this.

2) The Atonement of Jesus Christ offers healing. At first he was wanting the Atonement to cure him of being gay, but instead it helped him be healed of the shame he felt. I hear so many members who think the Atonement can change us from gay to straight, and that's not true. I'm glad he made this distinction. Our Heavenly Parents don't view being gay or trans as something that needs to be cured. I wish that message was taught more openly in the Church.

3) Build deeper connections and show compassion. Loneliness and feeling like you don't belong at church are two of the most troubling aspects an LGBTQ+ person has to deal with if they are active in the LDS Church. Developing close friendships will help with that. Also, queer people tend to be more compassionate than the average person and I believe it's because of the experiences we had to deal with of living in a heteronormative world that isn't made for us.

He includes a few useful tips at the end on how to engage with queer people.

All in all, a much better story than the one written by the bishop. He shared part of how it feels to be a gay member of this church, the idea that he should be ashamed for who he is, that being gay isn’t a burden, that he doesn't fit in.

I appreciated he said this is part of his layers of identity and at the core of his identity is that we're children of heavenly parents. That's more nuanced than the apostles who reject being gay has anything to do with identity and our only identity should be a child of God.

————————————————————

The final story is from For the Strength of Youth. This piece seems like it's written by a queer person, but it's anonymous and given as general advice to show that people with same-sex attraction belong at church.

This article makes 3 main points. The first is that God loves you. That's true, although accompanying quotes to back up this principle aren't specifically about queer people.

The second point is "you belong." All sorts of people attend church, and God is no respecter of persons. Then they have a quote from Elder L. Whitney Clayton that people with same-sex attraction are welcome to come to church. To me, he's an odd choice to give this message as he led the Church's fight in California on Prop 8 to make gay marriage illegal again. Words aren't enough. Saying I'm welcome is not the same as making a welcoming climate.

The third point is that God will help you. They include a quote from Laura F. who experiences same-sex attraction. She writes about prayer, scripture study, temple and church attendance. However, she also says she doesn't know what her life will look like in 20 years, she seems to be leaving open the possibility her journey with God will lead her to romance and out of the church. I thought that was very honest and important.

————————————————————

I found it noteworthy that nowhere in these 3 articles does it say being alone and celibate is good and what God wants.

I appreciate the idea that we can make our local congregations less homophobic/transphobic. The suggestions from the bishops shows that the bar is pretty low and it doesn't take much to make an improvement from how things are now.

The voices of the two gay members was important, what they shared was useful but nuanced, didn't make commitments to staying in the church long-term or testify that what the church requires is what God wants for them.

Even so, it's clear the publisher is very careful. They use "same-sex attraction" so often, I think readers would be surprised the preferred term of most same-sex attracted people would be gay, bi or lesbian. While they addressed some things, like homophobic/transphobic comments, feeling shame & not fitting in, I think they largely skated past the things that make queer people decide that this church isn't for them.

There's a part of me that says I'm glad we're having this conversation in the Church magazines, but another part that says this is too sanitized and doesn't get at the heart of things. These are very hopeful messages that make it seem that queer people could easily choose to stay in church if a few adjustments were made and if they only understood God loves them, which avoids the "doctrine" that excludes queer people from the highest blessings and joys and makes us essentially second-class citizens in the kingdom of God, at least according to our church.

[vajranam]

Tibetan Attitude

Tibetan Attitude to Women

One of the major flaws in Tibetan culture is its attitude to women. The world has never been fair to women and, much as I hate to admit it, the treatment of women in the Himalayan regions, particularly amongst Tibetans, has been and continues to be deplorable. And it seems to me that a sizeable chunk of Tibetan misogyny took root once the lamas had become the rulers of Tibet.

We human beings look up to people who successfully acquire power, money and influence. We admire them, take them as our role models and try to emulate them. We might, for example, take a photo of ourselves in a pastiche of a publicity shot favoured by our current role model. Like all human beings, Tibetans like to emulate their role models and often choose the same career path.

For the sake of argument, imagine what Tibet would have been like if laypeople, not lamas and monks, had run the country? Would the monasteries still have been seen as the nation’s elite institutions? I doubt it.

Ambitious young people would have had other options, including the possibility of aspiring to a secular alternative. Like everyone else in the modern world, Tibetans would have gossiped about fashion, style trends and new superfoods, and they would have sung songs about the musicians, soldiers, states people, scientists and actors they admired.

Novels would have been written speculating about the lives of the popular and the famous. The Tibetans would have dressed like their heroes, had the same haircut, worn the same makeup and so on. But none of this happened because, for centuries, the lamas ruled Tibet, and the lamas, monks, monasteries and the Dharma predominated.

I don’t think Tibetans thought that women were intrinsically bad or a lower form of life or anything like that, but as the Vinaya states that monastics should avoid women, that is exactly what they did. Once the monks ruled Tibet and became the country’s role models, their avoidance of women began to be seen as an expression of disdain.

Over time, a contempt for women seeped into the minds of the Tibetan community and became the norm. The majority of lamas were celibate and the most highly respected monasteries and institutions were full of celibate monks, so it is hardly surprising that Tibet’s celibate communities emphasized the practice of celibacy. But it’s such a shame, even disheartening, that the lamas failed to bear in mind that lay Tibetans tend not to be celibate.

As a rule, Mahayana Buddhism teaches that men and women are equals – except the teachings that elevate women above men. Gender equality is clearly stated in the teachings, but in Tibet it was never highlighted or celebrated.

The Prajnaparamita, one of the Mahayana’s most important teachings, is often described as yum or ‘mother’. One of the fourteen fundamental vows taken by Vajrayana practitioners is never in any way to disparage, denigrate or abuse women.

If you break any one of the fourteen root vows of the Vajrayana and do not regret having broken it – meaning your regret leads you to confess and purify it – your journey along the Vajrayana path will be at an end. But in Tibet, gender equality has always been overshadowed by the monkish culture.

Please do not misunderstand me, I am not suggesting that every single Tibetan who consciously makes a vow of celibacy and follows the path of renunciation will always disparage or despise women. Neither am I saying that monks should now get married or be allowed to have sex. What I am saying is that according to the Buddhadharma, none of us should ever denigrate, abuse or harm any other sentient being, no matter what their gender – or species.

Buddhist monks are expected to follow the rules of the Vinaya. Just as boys who stay at boys-only hostels in Asia are told to steer clear of the girls-only hostels, the Vinaya’s technique for overcoming the desire for carnal pleasure with the opposite sex is to forbid men who have a fervent wish to become bhikshus (Vinaya monks) to be alone with a woman. This instruction is about avoidance, not denigration, abuse, disparagement and so on. And the same goes for nuns; aspiring bhikshunis are also discouraged from hanging out with boys. It’s the same rule for both genders.

If a man or a woman chooses the life of a renunciant as a bhikshu or bhikshuni, they necessarily choose to renounce all aspects of worldly life. But making such a choice has absolutely nothing to do with the denigration or abuse of women.

Some Vinaya practitioners (monks and nuns who maintain the Vinaya vows) also practise the Vajrayana (and maintain Vajrayana samayas). For them, to avoid another being because they are supposedly impure or imperfect would utterly contradict their Vajrayana samayas.

I grew up in the same neighbourhood as an exemplary monk called Lama Gelek. He was a genuinely good bhikshu and exactly the kind of model monastic that my friends and I loved to tease – we were very naughty.

As a monk, he knew he should never be alone with a woman and panicked if there was the slightest chance it might happen. At the same time, Lama Gelek’s attendant, who is still alive, told me that he offered tsok daily and had it secretly distributed to several women. I myself noticed the tsok distribution, but it was a long time before I managed to persuade Lama Gelek to explain what he was doing.

“As a Buddhist practitioner,” he said, “I try to do all the practices – Shravakayana, Bodhisattvayana and Vajrayana. I do not hold wrong views about women but, as a monk, the Vinaya tells me that I must never be alone with a woman in case she triggers the emotion of desire in me. The trouble is that being paranoid about my monk’s vows sometimes leads me to act inappropriately, which is not right!

Women are none other than dakinis and being paranoid about being alone with them does my samaya no good at all. So I purify my broken samayas through tsok practice.” Lama Gelek set an excellent example.

You might be surprised by just how many people practise all three yanas as Lama Gelek did. Outwardly they abide by the Vinaya of the Shravakayana, inwardly they arouse the bodhichitta of the Mahayana, and secretly they practise the Vajrayana.

Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse

Poison is Medicine - Clarifying the Vajrayana

Siddhartha’s Intent

[oatmilkovich]

Wait, your post about how they’re separated and things happened without being together, I think about that all the time. ik, in the grand scheme of things, 2.5 or so years isn’t long, but the sheer amount of stuff they go through in that time, depression, EMT, gay jesus, prison, mexico, they’ve had a lifetime of trauma in the span of 2 years, and I don’t understand why the writer wouldn’t allow us to see that. before s11, I thought that they talked in prison, not all of it, still had things to work through in s10 but, they should’ve had them discuss it! I think people tend to focus a lot on ian being with other men, (not that those relationships were all that great) which I think mickey’d be jealous of, but it’s not like he was celibate for 2.5 years. I think what would bother them the most is just how many big things, (losing Monica, Mickey adjusting to Mexico) they missed. At least now they have their whole lives to be together. 😌💜

i really wish the s10 conflict had been about adjusting to the fact they finally were together without a ticking clock or something hanging over their heads ready to drop rather than what we got. they easily could've gotten to the marriage endgame of the season without the stupid parole scam and the thinking the other murdered someone. there was so much potential for discussions between the two of them about their past and the things they missed out on but of course, why would we ever get that?

they'd been apart for so long, they'd missed out on so much together... and like, without hesitation, they're back together obviously – and this time forever. things are going to naturally get in the way after not being around each other, especially given the circumstances.

what i've always loved about them is that no matter who else gets involved, they're always temporary – and both those boys know it. when it's them, no one else matters. i do think they'd both be jealous of the knowledge that there were other people – we know they're rabid territorial dogs – but i definitely think there's more weight in the fact they missed out on big things, everyday things, hours, days, minutes they could've spent together. i would've loved to have some of ian's pov on that period – on the fact for a large majority of it mickey had been around, just a couple miles away in prison. i'd love to hear his thoughts on the things he went through w monica's death and gay jesus, i would've loved to have learnt about mickey's life down south and the good things he got up to – because that man sure as hell was not miserable for a year. mick's feelings over missing out on ian being an EMT and the people he surrounded himself with!! how isolating being on his own must've been!!

they easily could've addressed ian's fears over marriage without going the route they did!! they could've tied it in with their history and ian's experiences, his mental health, monica and everything. they could've addressed mickey's fear of not being enough – introducing a discussion about the times he's been on the receiving end of a goodbye. a parallel between s6 and s10 with ian visiting and being there for mick in prison!!! it would've been healing and satisfying!!!

it turns out i have a lot more frustration surrounding s10 than i thought i did lol and i am sorry this ended up being a rant. but there was just so much more they could've worked through, so many more conversations they should've had and the writers unsurprisingly didn't deliver. this definitely isn't what you wanted to talk about but it's okay. they're together forever and i have fix it fics to rely on ❤️

[d3nt4l-d4m4g3]

Consider: The effeminists

Effeminist—(historical) A member of a male homosexual movement opposing prejudices against effeminate behaviour.  —Wikipedia

The next quote is from Jeanne Cordova’s When We Were Outlaws. She was a major figure in the lesbian feminist movement and created the most prominent lesbian newspaper of the time, The Lesbian Tide. This part of her autobiography is set when the lesbians employeed at the gay center (who created some of the first health care programs for women alcoholics, btw)  are shoved out of power. Most of the gay male employees at the GCSC were fine with what was clearly manipulative and misogynistic bullshit that would disempower an entire neighborhood of poor, lower-class women. However, one group of men stood by the lesbians:

“In recent weeks a handful of the gay male employees [at the Gay Community Services Center] had begun to support us, calling themselves “effeminists,” a term used by radical left wing of the gay movement. Effeminists glorified in the name “gay faeries” and understood that the straight world mocked them because they as (f-slur)  identified with women. They championed feminist principles like lesbian equality in the gay movement. They were usually feminine, rather than butch gay men, and they became our natural allies.” (Cordova 97-98)

The Effeminists’ 1973 Manifesto is below, transcribed from this archive:

The Effeminist Manifesto (1973) Steven Dansky, John Knoebel, Kenneth Pitchford

We, the undersigned Effeminists of Double-F hereby invite all like-minded men to join with us in making our declaration of independence from Gay Liberation and all other Male-Ideologies by unalterably asserting our stand of revolutionary commitment to the following Thirteen Principles that form the quintessential substance of our politics:

       On the oppression of women. 1. SEXISM. All women are oppressed by all men, including ourselves. This systematic oppression is called sexism. 2. MALE SUPREMACY. Sexism itself is the product of male supremacy, which produces all other forms of oppression that patriarchal societies exhibit: racism, classism, ageism, economic exploitation, ecological imbalance. 3. GYNARCHISM. Only that revolution which strikes at the root of all oppression can end any and all of its forms. That is why we are gynarchists; that is, we are among those who believe that women will seize power from the patriarchy and, thereby, totally change life on this planet as we know it. 4. WOMEN’S LEADERSHIP. Exactly how women will go about seizing power is no business of ours, being men. But as effeminate men oppressed by masculinist standards, we ourselves have a stake in the destruction of the patriarchy, and thus we must struggle with the dilemma of being partisans – as effeminists – of a revolution opposed to us – as men. To conceal our partisanship and remain inactive for fear of women’s leadership or to tamper with questions which women will decide would be no less despicable. Therefore, we have a duty to take sides, to struggle to change ourselves, to act.

       On the oppression of effeminate men. 5. MASCULINISM. Faggots and all effeminate men are oppressed by the patriarchy’s systematic enforcement of masculinist standards, whether these standards are expressed as physical, mental, emotional, or sexual stereotypes of what is desirable in a man. 6. EFFEMINISM. Our purpose is to urge all such men as ourselves (whether celibate, homosexual, or heterosexual) to become traitors to the class of men by uniting in a movement of Revolutionary Effeminism so that collectively we can struggle to change ourselves from non-masculinists into anti-masculinists and begin attacking those aspects of the patriarchal system that most directly oppress us. 7. PREVIOUS MALE-IDEOLOGIES. Three previous attempts by men to create a politics of fighting oppression have failed because of their incomplete analysis: the Male Left, Male Liberation, and Gay Liberation. These and other formations, such as sexual libertarianism and the counter-culture, are all tactics for preserving power in men’s hands by pretending to struggle for change. We specifically reject a hands by pretending to struggle for change. We specifically reject a carry-over from one or more of these earlier ideologies – the damaging combination of ultra-egalitarianism, anti-leadership, anti-technology, and downward mobility. All are based on a politics of guilt and a hypocritical attitude towards power which prevents us from developing skills urgently needed in our struggle and which confuses the competence needed for revolutionary work with the careerism of those who seek personal accommodation within the patriarchal system. 8. COLLABORATORS AND CAMP FOLLOWERS. Even we effeminate men are given an option by the patriarchy: to become collaborators in the task of keeping women in their place. Faggots, especially, are offered a subculture by the patriarchy which is designed to keep us oppressed and also increase the oppression of women. This subculture includes a combination of anti-women mimicry and self-mockery known as camp which, to its trivializing effect, would deny us any chance of awakening to our own suffering, the expression of which can be recognized as revolutionary sanity by the oppressed. 9.SADO-MASCULINITY: ROLE PLAYING AND OBJECTIFICATION. The Male Principle, as exhibited in the last ten thousand years, is chiefly characterized by an appetite for objectification, role-playing, and sadism. First, the masculine preference for thinking as opposed to feeling encourages men to regard other people as things, and to use them accordingly. Second, inflicting pain upon people and animals has come to be deemed a mark of manhood, thereby explaining the well-known proclivity for rape and torture. Finally, a lust for power-dominance is rewarded in the playing out of that ultimate role, The Man, whose rapacity is amply displayed in witch-hunts, lynchings, pogroms, and episodes of genocide, not to mention the day-to-day (often life-long) subservience that he exacts from those closest to him. Masculine bias, thus, appears in our behavior whenever we act out the following categories, regardless of which element in each pair we are most drawn to at any moment: subject/object; dominant/submissive; master/slave; butch/femme. All of these false dichotomies are inherently sexist, since they express the desire to be masculine or to possess the masculine in someone else. The racism of white faggots often reveals the same set of polarities, regardless of whether they choose to act out the dominant or submissive role with black or third-world men. In all cases, only by rejecting the very terms of these categories can we become effeminists. This means explicitly rejecting, as well, the objectification of people based on such things as age; body; build; color; size or shape of facial features, eyes, hair, genitals; ethnicity or race; physical and mental handicap; life-style; sex. We must therefore strive to detect and expose every embodiment of The Male Principle, no matter how and where it may be enshrined and glorified, including those arenas of faggot objectification (baths, bars, docks, parks) where power-dominance, as it operates in the selecting of roles and objects, is known as “cruising.” 10. MASOCH-EONISM. Among those aspects of our oppression which The Man has foisted upon us, two male heterosexual perversions, in particular, are popularly thought of as being “acceptable” behavior for effeminate men: eonism (that is, male transvestitism) and masochism. Just as sadism and masculinism, by merging into one identity, tend to become indistinguishable one from the other, so masochism and eonism are born of an identical impulse to mock subservience in men, as a way to project intense anti-women feelings and also to pressure women into conformity by providing those degrading stereotypes most appealing to the sado-masculinist. Certainly, sado-masoch-eonism is in all its forms the very anti-thesis of effeminism. Both the masochist and the eonist are particularly an insult to women since they overtly parody female oppression and pose as object lessons in servility. 11. LIFE-STYLE: APPEARANCE AND REALITY. We must learn to discover and value The Female Principle in men as something inherent, beyond roles or superficial decoration, and thus beyond definition by any one particular life-style (such as the recent androgeny fad, transsexuality, or other purely personal solutions). Therefore, we do not automatically support or condemn faggots or effeminists who live alone, who live together in couples, who live together in all-male collectives, who live with women, or who live in any other way – since all these modes of living in and of themselves can be sexist but also can conceivably come to function as bases for anti-sexist struggle. Even as we learn to affirm in ourselves the cooperative impulse and to admire in each other what is tender and gentle, what is aesthetic, considerate, affectionate, lyrical, sweet, we should not confuse our own time with that post-revolutionary world when our effeminist natures will be free to express themselves openly without fear or punishment or danger of oppressing others. Above all, we must remember that it is not merely a change of appearance that we seek, but a change in reality. 12. TACTICS. We mean to support, defend and promote effeminism in all men everywhere by any means except those inherently male supremacist or those in conflict with the goals of feminists intent on seizing power. We hope to find militant ways for fighting our oppression that will meet these requirements. Obviously, we do not seek the legalization of faggotry, quotas, or civil-rights for faggots or other measures designed to reform the patriarchy. Practically, we see three phases of activity: naming our enemies to start with, next confronting them, and ultimately divesting them of their power. This means both the Cock Rocker and the Drag Rocker among counter-cultist heroes, both the Radical Therapist and the Faggot-Torturer among effemiphobic psychiatrists, both the creators of beefcake pornography and of eonistic travesties. It also means all branches of the patriarchy that institutionalize the persecution of faggots (schools, church, army, prison, asylum, old-age home). But whatever the immediate target, we would be wise to prepare for all forms of sabotage and rebellion which women might ask of us, since it is not as pacifists that we can expect to serve in the emerging world-wide anti-gender revolution. We must also constantly ask ourselves and each other for a greater measure of risk and commitment than we may have dreamt was possible yesterday. Above all, our joining in this struggle must discover in us a new respect for women, a new ability to love each other as effeminists, both of which have previously been denied us by our misogyny and effemiphobia, so that our bonding until now has been the traditional male solidarity that is always inimical to the interests of women and pernicious of our own sense of effeminist self-hood. 13. DRUDGERY AND CHILDCARE: RE-DEFINING GENDER. Our first and most important step, however, must be to take upon ourselves at least our own share of the day-to-day life-sustaining drudgery that is usually consigned to women alone. To be useful in this way can release women to do other work of their choosing and can also begin to re-define gender for the next generation. Of paramount concern here, we ask to be included in the time-consuming work of raising and caring for children, as a duty, right and privilege.

Attested to this twenty-seventh day of Teves and first day of January, in the year of our falthering Judeo-Christian Patriarchy, 5733 and 1973, by Steven Dansky, John Knoebel, and Kenneth Pitchford.

[derireo]

I've had this in my head for a while, so I'm just gonna ask, from the winter troupe, who do you think are ummmm v i r g i n s (oh God I can't believe I am even asking this sorry omg) if you would like, you can also do the other troupes, i dunno why but I find it interesting in a way (obviously not muku or yuki if you decide to, and also, if you feel uncomfortable with this ask feel free to ignore it! you are the writer after all! take care!❤️❤️

np, anon! to those wondering, very strictly i will not include members who are 17 and under in the game here so please be mindful of that if you do not see a member you like in this post

All Troupes (no members 17 & under): Virgins?

SPRING

Sakuya

Definitely a virgin

You think he's ever held hands with someone in a romantic way??? He can't even ask someone out without quickly changing his mind before going back to ask again. Maybe when he's older and gets out of his cute baby thing, he'll get to bone, but not now. Maybe not ever? Keep him celibate.

Itaru

Definitely not a virgin.

He probably got tired of rejecting people's advances at some point and just cooly agreed to spend the night a few times. Very likely that he barely did any of the work, but still got them to orgasm; he's crazy good for no reason. Definitely really likes being the one receiving, but he's different around you though, and actually makes an effort lol

Tsuzuru

50/50. I have no idea. Most likely a virgin though.

He literally has like 3 younger brothers and juggled a lot of part time jobs along with school; I don't think he has ever had the time of day to pop a boner. His mind is so preoccupied with getting tasks done and finishing upcoming assignments that he's gonna be a virgin for a long while.

Citron

Literally no clue. Maybe not a virgin?

He's 22, and a lot of people tend to lose their virginity in their twenties so who knows with Citron?? He's awfully good at flirting with others and knows how to fluster people, but does he know how to Get Down & Dirty????? Again, no clue. Maybe he bones so well that his victims can't even say anything about it.

SUMMER

Kazunari

Not a virgin probs

Despite how well he socialises with other people, he's not one to just casually have a fling. He does think of other's feelings and how they feel about him, but it's rare for him to take initiative with someone he's interested in. Otherwise if it's the other way around, but he isn't attracted to the person that's coming onto him, he'll refuse and scurry off.

Misumi

Definitely a virgin!

He literally only thinks about triangles and food, there is no chance that he's had sex yet. Maybe if he had a character in the play that required him to be a playboy or something' he'll absolutely fool people into thinking he's been around, but his sunshine personality and tunnel vision towards certain things prevents him from having fun. Don't think he's interested in sex, really.

AUTUMN

Banri

VIRGIN

Mr. Tough Guy over here tries hard to let people know he's been around. Totally, not true. He always brags about having more girls liking him than Juza, and it may be true (since he doesn't seem as terrifying as him), but he has never gone that far with a girl. Sure, he has dated A LOT, has had plenty of girls sit in his lap and has definitely had his fair share of kisses, but he's a virgin. He dumps a girl before he even has the thought of boning.

Juza

VIRGIN

Absolutely no way could he have ever had sex. He's so self-deprecating sometimes, so that's one reason why he hasn't gotten that far with girls, plus he really loves sweets and food so that's probably the only thing occupying his mind. He hasn't even been in a relationship yet because he gets nervous around the people he likes and probably thinks he's not even worth dating anyway. He's probably a good boy though and will wait after marriage.

Omi

Surprisingly not a virgin

Shocking? Not to me, honestly, lol. Again, Omi is a people pleaser, and remember that phase in his life where he was a super tough guy ass kicker??? And rode motorcycles (from what I can remember)??? Of course this man is gonna be a chick magnet, and Of Course I am willing to let him choke me. So, yeah, he's probably fucked once or twice during that time in his life, but once he got into Mankai, abstinate.

Sakyo

Not a virgin, but he'll definitely fool you into thinking he is.

What do I mean? Why, I'll tell ya. He's got a stick so far up his ass sometimes that you can't help but wonder if he's sexually deprived. Like 31 years without getting your dick wet? Absolutely tragic. Anyways, nah, he definitely has a body count higher than 3. May have been quick flings considering he used to work a shady job and got high off the thrill, but he only focuses on Mankai now.

WINTER

Homare

Maybe

He did have a girlfriend at some point, but I don't know how far he would have gotten with her. It seemed like she was so annoyed with him and his lack of emotion that they probably didn't get too far. He is quite the notorious poet though, so maybe he used to have a few groupies??? Is that possible??? Do u think Rupi Kaur has groupies???

Hisoka

. . . Maybe

With his vague storyline about being a spy prior to his amnesia, the only reason I can give for him not being a virgin is solely because he had to have sex for a mission. Like how James Bond has sex with the enemy or something and then gets all the intel of the evil organisation he has to go against (never watched any of the movies). Otherwise, he's a virgin in his life as Hisoka.

Tasuku

VIRGIN

Doesn't care about men or women; too preoccupied with working out and acting that his dick never gets pulled out by someone else. Sure, maybe he'll tug one out because his body demands him to, but he never really was interested in relationships nor does he seem to be someone who finds physical attraction important.

Tsumugi

VIRGIN

Also focuses way too much on acting and working that he doesn't get the chance to. He was in a relationship before if I recall correctly, but he probably didn't have enough time for them considering he was so busy. He has also probably tugged a few out, but only because his body required him to do so. I'm not sure how he feels about sex tbh?

Azuma

NOPE

You can't tell me he's a virgin, it's just not possible. We don't even know this man's age!!!! He's probably a vampire!!!! He's probably been fucking for centuries!!!! And have you seen how well he can flirt? Super crazy. Pretty sure he's a sadist as well with how he always says he likes to be the one playing, plus he always manages to lure out the worst of the boys just for his amusement. Body Count: Out the Roof