#opinions are like onions

[candidenigma]

I fully appreciate the point that this post is making; this is just a personal reflection.

I sometimes find myself in the awkward position of having other people think I am this when in reality I am anything but.

The problem is that I like many things which are considered too "normative" by the standards of the people with whom I share political allegiance. However these things are also what I liked in early childhood, or interests that developed from what I liked in early childhood. I am fundamentally the same person that I was as a little kid, just more informed and more experienced. This is in spite of the fact that everyone I interacted with (with the significant exception of my parents) felt uncomfortable with who I was then. Why was that? Because, in their perception, I was too mature. I behaved too much like an adult, and a very old-fashioned and serious one at that. People were constantly pressuring me to be more like my same-age peers - even like the socially awkward nerdy kids. But I knew who I was, I liked who I was, and I had a level of self-confidence that could knock people flat when they weren't expecting it.

Fast forward to young adulthood and my attempts to meet other people whom I could relate to. I learnt the hard way that the LGBT+ community and the haunts of self-identified leftists were not the place to do it. The same tastes, interests, mannerisms, and ways of being that had me called "weird" all the way through school were now called "normative" and even "repressed". The implicit message was that all these things were not authentic to me but conditioned behaviours that I had to break free from to be my true self. I have never felt so much pressure to assimilate than in the company of people who called me an "assimilationist".

Henceforth I am now cautious of anyone who uses words like normative too liberally, or compares maturity to the loss of childhood joy and authenticity. The things which gave me joy and a sense of authenticity in childhood were considered non-normative specifically because they were supposedly too mature.

Perhaps you (whomever is reading this) can recognise the difference between someone who is at the "goldfish level" and someone whose dreams and unique desires just aren't what you expected, and whose empathy has been continually tested by the astounding lack of it in others. Perhaps you wouldn't give me the sad, hollow, patronising look that says "you haven't discovered who you are yet, have you? you haven't finished becoming a real human being, like me."

you ever see someone so coked-up on adulthood that they've replaced every shred of interiority with a regurgitation of normative power structures

[linkspooky]

Rewatching Shera and it's funny how both of Adora's closest friend gets driven into negative character arcs partially because of how she treats them. Like, Honey, I'm detecting a pattern here. If only the show runners had seen it.

[designernishiki]

I'm actually wondering why Kiryu calls Majima "niisan". Like, it couldn't have come out of nowhere, right? It wasn't like they met and boom Kiryu immediately began to address him like that, there must be some reason for this. Because, he would have called Majima "aniki" if it was just "respect for the elder." For example, he called Kuze an aniki and this is both the "respect the elderly" and "respect for the who is above you in a rank". So in those years between '88 and '95, something definitely happened between these two.

Like, for example, in Ishin, when after all the events, Ryoma starts calling Okita "niisan" and he reacts like 😳huh?😳

no but you’re so right that’s such an interesting detail….. cause like. you could try and take it like how ryoma describes it in ishin (“you’ve saved my life so many times, that’s why you’re niisan to me” or something like that)– but in the mainline series that logic doesn’t make sense because like you said, he was calling majima “majima no niisan” before majima had ever saved his life (to our knowledge), and before really just… anything we know about that would constitute that kind of closeness/fondness.

so like. DID majima save his ass at some point (or multiple points) between 0 and 1? did they just get to know each other really well over that time for other reasons or simply because they liked one another?? they HAD to have had a significant amount of relationship development in that time and it drives me insane not knowing HOW.

it’s also interesting to note that kiryu doesn’t really use “no niisan” with anyone else of a similar age and rank for the most part, so there really has to be something about majima, and something about their relationship in general that’s different. I think part of what allowed their relationship to end up feeling so romantically coded in the first place is the fact that the extremely prevalent theme of brotherhood/familial bonds amongst yakuza has never felt like they apply to them– which is a stark contrast to most other close relationships kiryu has. So kiryu addressing him differently than most other guys in his life has always made it feel like their bond is… something else. but I digress.

[carmenized-onions]

hi. tried to reblog and leave a bunch of tags but made a mistake and tumblr wouldn't let me edit the post SO i took a screenshot because I WILL NOT REWRITE ALL OF THAT BECAUSE IT WAS ALREADY TERRIBLE TO TRY AND GO BACK TO MY NOTES TO INCLUDE THEM INTO THE TAGS BECAUSE THE APP WOULD ERASE EVERYTHING so here you have a long ass pic with a ton of tags. love u u fucking mastermind 💋

I DID IN FACT GET THIS ASK FIRST OF ALL, IF YOU SENT ANOTHER ONE OTHER THAN THE DID YOU GET THAT ONE, then I am missing one, but I got this one!

I'm so glad you think it could standalone and make sense because I went into posting this like "so many people are not gonna be able to keep up with the tense changing and the time skipping, i'm being incoherent" thank you all for proving me wrong. My writing profs taught me to believe everyone does not have reading comprehension. Perhaps we should be giving more credit to readers, me thinks.

Man, I wish Carmen in The Bear canon aligned with CK not particularly because I wish he was better but because watching S3 I was like oh,,,, did I get all that wrong? Because to me, yeah does Carmen run away from things? 1 fucking million percent. At the same time, however, Carmen is an artist and I think like,,,, he's taught, yknow? He takes direction and critique, is always how I took him-- And so like, he just compartmentalizes criticism of his character the same way he would his craft; and he fucking likes making shit better, so he transfers it to life.

I considered massively pivoting from this choice for him to accept that he needs to be better, and instead like, Bojacks it, basically, but like, I'd already done this in CK canon:

Did I emulate my own previous scene to call back to the beginning of their relationship in chapter 13? Yeah 100% I did but back on topic--

I'd already decided that this was how Carmen went about things, and to be fair, I think honestly if everyone had just let each other finish sentences in S3EP01, that entire season I think would've gone an entirely different route, but c'est la vie, that's the tragic comedy of it all.

NOW ONTO MIKEY! I think some have said they prefer this Jimmy negotiation to canon-- And to be fair, though the sobriety aspect may not have been a part of it, Mikey did say he wanted to franchise with Carmen, and that's what the money was for. Or at least that's what Carmen affirms:

god fucking jesus christ he was so much more charming in S2 what the FUCK moving ON

But anyways, I think the 10k/week thing honestly is something Uncle would do, and I guess this is me staking my bet on it. I'd like to believe Mikey was climbing his way out-- Or maybe that's more tragic? I dunno. Regardless, I adore him, so, yknow. he's the guy!

50 PLUS YEARS FOR CARMEN? YOU THINK THIS GUY COULD LIVE TO 80? BABY LOOK UP POPCORN LUNG THIS MAN WAS GETTING ULCERS AT 21 WE'RE LUCKY IF WE GET TO 60

regardless, thank you for enjoying i'm so glad that my interpretation of Mikey was enjoyed. I tried to be as like,,, accurate as possible to what I feel he'd act like out of the small scenes we've seen of him, but I also absolutely had to pull from my own oldest brother. so. i don't have issues idk what all of you are talking about.

also, I will put this in a master post of like, bits I was doing, later, because there's a fucking lot, but this is the last post I'm making before bed and I wanna get yelled at about this in my inbox in the morning nothing makes me happier:

Chapter 1! Tony Terry Tommy!

Chapter 13! Two Steps Back.

I know I'm a bitch, aren't I? I'm sure rereaders noticed this but I wanted the whole class to know.

While I'm at it, Chapter 12! Hit em with it!

YEAH BABY SHE'D BEEN THINKING ABOUT IT THE WHOOOOLLLEEE TIMMEEEEE YEEEEAAAHHHHHHHH I'm fucked up for this one. I had the Cold thing planned since chapter 1 I'm so SICK with it. Yell at me in my inbox I do love to make everyone mad ngl call me Carmen cause I'm a fucking shit starter baby

thank you for your thoughts and thank you for giving me a place to yap for WAY too fucking long GOOD NIGHT OR GOOD MORNING PENDING WHERE YOU ARE!!

[confinesofmy]

oh yeahh! i can put sriracha on anything

[mordcore]

i am rarely able to express my thoughts well, but i guess sometimes i accidentally write it all out in a youtube comment section. i wanted to share it here as well:

i definitely think it can be useful to use an addiction framework for social media, videogames or whatnot, but then u gotta do it right and ask "what kind of pain are you treating with this addiction". if its a real addiction then saying "youre selfish and lazy for being an addict" is NO IT. that's how "people want a shortcut to pleasure without putting in the work" sounds to me anyway, though maybe im imagining the judgement there. but here's the fact: being addicted to your phone doesn't feel good. there's little pleasure in it. as a hedonist (the original philosophy meaning not the usa propaganda version) i do my best to get away from social media and find ways to be more present in reality, "touching grass", doing things that i genuinely enjoy and treating my physical, spiritual and mental pain as good as i can. the social media is a bandaid that causes the wound to fester. but not all addictions are equal. 2 years ago when fall started and i had seasonal depression i noticed myself falling back into phone addiction, and i made the active choice to go back to smoking instead. bc social media makes me depressed and cigarettes help me to touch grass. this isnt a smoking ad, smoking will destroy your body, i just meant that sometimes choosing an addiction is the right choice. id rather be a smoker than suicidal, for example. sure there's long-term consecuences but at least i'll live long enough to have them. i dont smoke anymore btw, ive been chewing nicotine gums for over a year. youre supposed to get off them but if i stay on them im confident i wont smoke again, and being addicted on its own is a neutral thing. its the real impact on your life that is to be considered, of any health condition, and addiction more often than not is a form of self-medicating. just, if youre self-medicating, make sure the treatment you choose actually works, yeah? if you wanna stop doomscrolling, make a list of all the reasons why you wanna quit and have it present at all times, delete your tiktok or twitter, and find something better to do instead. when do you scoll? when youre tired, upset and in sensory overload? find other ways to adress your needs that actually work. setting impossibly high standards like "instead of using tiktok after work/school/watching the news i will exercise and be productive" yeah thats not gonna happen and u know it. learn how to relax, rest, soothe yourself, etc. addiction is always a symptom of underlying unmet needs. learning toi meet your needs takes time and hard work. that's part of why quitting is so hard. if you had a better coping skill, you would be doing that instead!

[knife-em0ji]

I truly have no hate in my heart for people who ship obikin but I will go on record to say that I think people who insist they want to fuck each other are not only probably wrong, but even worse, boring. Romantic obikin is probably the most pedestrian and obvious read of their relationship, whereas imo the fact that they’re so obsessed with each other and love and hate each other so deeply in equal measure but very much DO NOT want to fuck adds so much more insanity-inducing juice to it. It’s like. You’re my dad but you cringe from the title. I don’t feel like your son. Are you my best friend? We don’t trust each other enough for that. Did I have a weird psychosexual fixation on you as a kid? Maybe, but that’s over now, I’ve always been in love with somebody else. Are we brothers? No, not really, but that might be the closest word to we have. Are you my enemy? More often than not. Are we soulmates? Yes, absolutely.

Like, you can do whatever you want forever, I’m not going to stop you. I’m a diehard proponent of letting your favorite fictional guys fuck nasty. But the sheer ambiguity of their relationship despite how all-consuming it is, is what makes obikin compelling to ME !!!

[candidenigma]

NB: This isn't a criticism in the slightest; it's just a personal reflection.

One day I hope I will find - or else write - a suggestion for how to make friends as an adult when this process did not work for you as a child. My parents organised play-dates like this and I knew how to interact socially but I never formed a connection with other children. In most cases this was because we didn't have anything in common. I knew that I was meant to play nicely with the other kid so I would go along with whatever they wanted to do, or we would do something independently beside each other (like drawing). Sometimes I had fun but I was usually relieved when they or I went home. There was one person whom I made a connection with at school (at age 5-6) because we did have interests in common. Unfortunately she was extremely controlling and it was, without any exaggeration, and abusive friendship. After that ended (far too late) I had a long string of disappointments lasting up to adulthood. Interactions that started well but never went anywhere and often ended bitterly. Nowadays I assume that even if I spend time with someone and share food & hobbies with them, we'll be friendly acquaintances at best. I can get along with most people casually, just as I could be a well-behaved play-date. But friendship? I think there's something more to it.

The idea children make friends more easily than adults is a complete lie. Most children make friends easily because they’re forced to. If your mom shoved the neighbour’s daughter into your room like ‘Hi honey, this is Laura, she’s twenty-five and three months and likes Star Wars, just like you!’ and then forced you to spend nine hours a week with Laura with a Death Star Lego set and a buttload of snacks, the two of you would probably become friends.

In many ways, growing up means becoming your own mom. If you want to make new friends, you need to spend time with people you don’t know and try to connect with them by sharing hobbies, food, and possibly a shove or two - just like you did when you were a toddler. There’s nothing more to it.

[marc--chilton]

(mgv) jalkfawiofiahyfjewgmw house has his and wilson's pup and as he's lying there exhausted he turns to chase and thirteen and says, "i'm this one's mom but i'm still your guys' dad. don't get it twisted" and it's so House™ it makes both of them snort

[the-habitat-ring]

Planted the Egyptian walking onion bulbs, cut back the mint, dug up some horseradish, and shoveled a bunch of wood chips. Time to be immobile for a while before dealing with the mint and horseradish on the counter

[phantom-does-a-thing]

ok not to hate on your food opinions but what have onions ever done to you /lh

Onions killed my grandma okay /ref

[candidenigma]

Weird is relative.

I grew up being called weird, because I had unusual tastes and interests (for my age, assigned gender, etc.) and I was an independent thinker at an early age. People often assumed that I was neurodivergent although I didn't meet any diagnostic criteria. Even other children who were considered weird couldn't necessarily relate to me, because we had different types of 'weird' interests and 'weird' personalities, or because they actually were neurodivergent and I wasn't.

When I went to university I started hanging out at the Queer Department, which was the official name of the student guild department for LGBT+ people. I thought I would meet people who could relate to me more easily, and visa versa. I met various different kinds of people and some of them were very friendly but it was clear that I didn't belong there either. I had someone imply that I was an imposter and/or didn't know my own identity. Others eyed me with suspicion or confusion. I realised that I was just as weird in that context as I had been in the general scrum at school. Only they weren't calling me weird; they were looking me up and down, expressing shock when I wasn't familiar with the topic of conversation, or pulling faces when my tastes and interests were markedly different to theirs. (I'm not referring to anything controversial; just the wrong taste in music or the wrong historical interests.)

The trouble is, many of those people identified in some way with weirdness. Queer is, after all, a synonym for weird. It's modern use carries the implication that LGBT+ people are the ones with weird gender/sexuality/gender expression, even if this is meant positively. It was also common to see alternative styles at the Queer Department, along with elements of what is considered nerd culture. I would hazard a guess that people there took pride (or wanted to take pride) in the things that made them different. But there was no room for me to do the same. They were queer/weird as in 'not like most people', I was queer/weird as in 'not like us'.

“we need more weird art!” but not anything that makes me feel uncomfortable or alienated or challenged. “weird art” but i don’t want to consider the perspective of anyone i might have real irrevocable differences from. “weird art” but everything must be carefully couched in the language of white middle-class american sensibilities at all times. “weird art” but it has to be picked from a list of pre-established “weird” tropes that i recognize from carefully curated lists on letterboxd.

[starsfromtoulon]

it really is true what they say....your first les mis becomes Your Les Mis.....

[jrueships]

hes so corny im gonna thr*w up

[july-19th-club]

im trying i swear im trying SO hard not to be bitchy about legends and lattes getting finalized for the hugo but . okay the hugo is a prize for science fiction/speculative fiction/fantasy fiction. and words mean things and essentially this is putting a very plot-lite romance novel with a fantasy setting up against political spec fic and like, books being entered in a contest that the left hand of darkness once won. which isn't to say that the contest itself is like, sacred ground - starship troopers, 1960 - basically heinlen's treatise on why the military is necessary to whip the youths into shape - like, it's a seventy-year-old science fiction prize, there's gonna be a lot of unlikeable books on there, actually. and its not to say that lighter books or books riding a wave of hype haven't won it before (harry potter won it in 2001)...it's just. it's a weird collection this year, is all, and the contest has skewed wider in its interpretation of spec fic in the past ten-twenty years, which i'm not upset about! words mean things but im also a huge proponent of thee two-time hugo winner UKLG's thoughts on genre. genre is as mutable as the clouds. we call things 'spec fic' often because they're difficult to categorize. but, and i'm saying this huge long preface because i genuinely don't want to seem like a wet blanket, but it's just...it's the wrong contest for the book. there's been a lot of good sff this year. but that's a romance novel. and also its not hugo levels of good

[candidenigma]

I think there are two separate though related questions being confused here.

If the question is, 'can a cis woman experience a forced feminisation kink', then the answer - as with so many aspects of human sexuality - is 'fuck around and find out'.

If the question is, 'does forced feminisation have the same cultural meaning for cis women as for people of other gender configurations', then the answer is 'no', or at least, 'it's complex'. See below the cut for further explanation/opinions.

In most patriarchal cultures it is taboo or transgressive for an AMAB* person to have feminine** attributes, or an AFAB person to have masculine attributes. Whereas for an AMAB person to have masculine attributes, or an AFAB person to have feminine attributes is expected and desirable. For an AMAB person to be feminised then has a sense of the forbidden. Doing something that you aren't even meant to want - never mind indulge in. For some people it may be the thrill of this that is sexually arousing in itself. For others it may be the 'forced' element of 'forced feminisation' that is a way to dampen feelings of guilt. It's plausible deniability. "I don't want to do the bad thing, I'm being forced!" Whereas for an AFAB person to be feminised is not forbidden but culturally enforced, or at least strongly encouraged. It doesn't have an associated thrill or sense of guilt.

On the other hand, patriarchal cultures believe that maleness/manhood/masculinity are inherently superior to femaleness/womanhood/femininity. For an AMAB person to have feminine attributes is then more taboo, more transgressive than for an AFAB person to have masculine attributes. Whereas the latter is sometimes regarded positively, the former is almost always regarded negatively***. Forced femininsation is therefore humiliating in a way that forced masculinisation is not. Of course, being forced to do or be is anything is always humiliating, but there is a sense that femininity is humiliating all by itself. For some AMAB people forced feminisation satisfies a humiliation kink, and this could theoretically apply to AFAB people as well.

On the other hand... Something that could be described as dubcon (dubious consent) feminisation of cis women is often portrayed positively in media. This is where The Princess Diaries (2001) comes into it. Mia's makeover is not forced feminisation because she never outright refuses or resists, and there is no sense that she would be physically forced or coerced into complying if she did. (It also isn't set up as a kink scene or anything hinting at one.) Furthermore, Mia's reluctance is implied to stem from insecurity rather than a dislike of femininity. The audience is supposed to understand that Mia really wants to achieve the cultural standards of femininity but doesn't believe that it's possible. That's why it's meant to be a feelgood moment when she is revealed at the end.

Compare this with Annabelle's makeover in St Trinians (2007). This is an even clearer example of dubcon feminisation. (It also actually hints at kink.) Annabelle isn't exactly unfeminine beforehand - and neither is Mia, to be honest - but while Mia is shown to be lacking in feminine grace and refinement, Annabelle is implied to be lacking in feminine sexuality. She starts the movie looking like a typical student of a posh private (a.k.a. public in the UK) 'all-girls' school. I would know - I attended one. Her uniform is worn properly, her hair is tied in a ponytail, she wears no makeup or jewellery, and presents an overall clean and neat appearance. But this is too straight-laced for St Trinians and so, after some experimentation, she is transformed into a teenage sex kitten. This is also meant to be a feelgood moment. It is implied that Annabelle feels empowered by her new look. Whether this is because she has achieved a type of femininity that seemed out of reach, because she is defying the expectations of her previous school, because she is taking ownership of her sexuality, or because she believes that sex appeal does grant power... isn't clear. But Annabelle also feels a newfound sense of inclusion and identity. ("How do you feel?" - "Like St Trinians.") The outsider has been officially adopted by the new community.

So what does this say about compulsory femininity as it's experienced by AFAB people in real life? Or forced feminisation as a kink that cis women may or may not be able to experience? All jokes aside, confusing sexual fantasy/roleplay with real life experiences doesn't do anyone any favours. No, you cannot "forcefem anything". Forced feminisation, like any kink, is dependent on both cultural context and personal experience. No, there isn't culture that is "based around forcefemming ciswomen and cisgirls". It's the other way around. Forced feminisation as a kink doesn't exist without patriarchal attitudes towards gender transgression in general and femininity in specific.

*I am using AMAB and AFAB in the truest sense of 'assigned to the cultural category of male/female shortly after being born'. I am not using it as euphemism for specific types of genitals.

** I am using feminine and masculine in the sense of cultural meaning, not in the sense of personal feeling.

*** There may be exceptions in patriarchal cultures that have (or historically had) a 'third gender' whose members were highly respected, but this is the kind of thing that anthropologists write papers about.

"you can't forcefem cis women, that doesn't make sense" i can forcefem anything.