#queer people asking what’s ‘wrong’ with them

[kianamaiart]

how do you feel about people who aren't of the same race as that character voicing that character? Also since you work in the cartoon industry and have gone through the voice acting hiring process yourself, is there some sort of code that says its discrimination if you say "only people who fit into this group/all these groups should apply"? (asking this in good faith i hope it is clear. This is really hard to phrase. To make where I'm coming from more clear, while I doubt i would ever get the chance to do what you're doing, if this one comic I make was ever turned into a cartoon, its very important to me for example that the main character who is a non-binary Chinese-American Jew be portrayed by someone as close to that identity as possible. Because to me, there are limited chances for some people to portray themselves wholly on the screen, let alone at all, and to take that opportunity away would be wrong. And I just remember as a(n older) kid it made me even happier when i'd find out people voicing the rare characters who share parts of my identity actually WERE of that identity. But on the other hand, putting more and more restrictions means less and less people can audition and there is such a small chance the perfect person will even find the role. And also I'm not sure if this counts as discrimination in hiring legal code.

it's tricky for sure! in a perfect world, it shouldn't matter, but there's a history of marginalized people being, well, marginalized and denied work for usually white voice actors who can do an impression.

i think there should be a push to get more marginalized voice actors to voice characters like them but also characters that aren't! let actors be actors

You're right in that the more specific the identity, the smaller the pool of actors. and in that case, i think it's good to put in the effort to find people who identify with the role as closely as possible, even if it's not 100%. aika's black/japanese ethnicity, for example, is based off of my own heritage but she's played by anairis quinones, a black/puerto rican voice actor. i felt comfortable casting this way because i feel like at least on my end, i can write aika accurate to my own experience and make sure anything having to do with her identity is handled with care. and i very much trust anairis to understand! and although they're not japanese, they do have an understanding of what it means to be black and queer, which aika also is.

it's a case by case thing for sure but i'm always down to uplift marginalized actors!

[infimace-blog]

Keep coming back to this and thinking about the asker's perception of the Weatherlight Saga, because it's definitely not free of 'identity first' storytelling.

Tahngarth's entire plotline revolves around his identity as a minotaur, a racial characteristic in Dominaria. He's forced to question whether he's still himself, still a minotaur after Phyrexia captures and disfigures him, and the payoff for that is that a minotaur tribe starts decorating themselves after his new, distorted form when he helps rescue them from Phyrexia later on. So, you know, having identity issues during a apocalypse, like having a gender crisis during a Bolas invasion.

Mirri was discriminated against for having heterochromia, forcing her to leave her birth family. The desire to belong weighs on her so much that one of her big choices is whether to abandon her best friend and secret love for another tribe of catpeople who do respect her. It's less of a factor in her story than her doomed love for Gerrard, but, frankly, her willingness to get herself killed over a nice white boy for whom she was third-place (after Hanna and Rofellos) makes a lot more sense if if you take abandonment and isolation issues into account.

Maybe the asker didn't notice because these identity issues were put on the non-human side characters. But, you know, they were still there. They're some of my favorite parts of the Weatherlight Saga to talk about, besides the competition to become evincar and Urza's bizarre behavior. And while this happened with funny animal people, the structure is analogous to things the anti-woke crowd would hate. Tahngarth's identity issues are reminiscent of those of black people living in largely white societies. And there's a lot of people under the 'DEI' banner who've had to deal with getting kicked out of their home for being born wrong, often queer or disabled or neuroatypical people.

This is how you give characters good storylines, especially with Magic's limited ability to get the story in front of people who just play the cards. You find an aspect of themselves that they care deeply about, something fairly obvious and easy to communicate, and see how the external world impacts that. And we're still seeing that now. Chandra's putting herself through death-defying adventure in Aetherdrift because it might help her lover, and her love for her is a major part of her identity. Tone's certainly different than the lovelorn motivations of Mirri or Gerrard or Ertai over the course of the Weatherlight Saga, but it's the same building blocks.

I think more of that kind of characterization would have been beneficial for Sisay, honestly. I can't speak for Mark or Michael, but I've never really been interested in her because most of her story is about what she does rather than who she is. Gerrard bores me for similar reasons; I find it difficult to get a read on his personality besides 'heroic' and 'white savior'. It strikes me that the two greatest heroes of that era were raised and, in one case, born from Jamuraa, Dominaria's stand-in for Africa, but that never really comes up in the saga. Gerrard's background exists to give him an evil black stepbrother and the most important part of Sisay's is growing up owning the Weatherlight - I generally forget that she even fought in the Mirage Wars.

So yeah, I think anyone on the same page as the guy who asked this is not interested in getting good stories out of Magic. I'm regularly unimpressed by Magic's story output over the past decade, but I can't tolerate anybody who thinks the answer to that is 'make the characters less interesting. Shave their identities down'.

I want to speak out against the whole push towards DEI. I feel that ever since you made the push to make identity the forefront of a character it has hurt the stories you tell. Captain Sisay's race was never the focus of her character and she was a complete badass! And I fear if you did it over again Gerrard would be trans, black and disabled just because. It also cheapens the stories of world devastation when characters worry more about their gender than Bolas destroying everything.

The reason I started this blog is so we can have frank conversations about things, so please let’s talk about this.

Imagine if every time you turned on the TV or watched a movie, no one looked like you. For some of us, that’s never happened. We see ourselves constantly, so it’s hard to truly understand what not seeing yourself represented in media is like.

I do have a personal window to this experience. While I am white and male, there’s an area where I am the minority - my religion. Jews are just under two and a half percent of the US population. I have had many experiences where I’ve been in situations where everything is geared towards a group I do not belong to, and zero consideration is given that not everyone at that event is part of the majority.

You just feel invisible and like an outsider. It’s not a great feeling. And I just experience it a tiny portion of time, only things that are geared specifically towards something religious. Most minorities have this feeling all the time, whenever they’re outside their personal community.

Now imagine, after years of not seeing yourself ever, you finally see someone that looks like you, but nothing about the character rings remotely true. They don’t sound like you, they don’t act like you, the facts about their day-to-day life are just wrong. It’s clear whoever wrote the character didn’t truly understand the lived experience of the character, so the character feels fake.

You bring up Sisay. Michael Ryan and I didn’t technically create Sisay (she played a small role in the Mirage story), but we did do a lot to flesh out her character as the creators of the Weatherlight Saga. We turned her from a minor character into a major one.

And while I’m proud, in general, of our work on the Weatherlight Saga, I don’t think we did justice to Sisay as a character. Neither Michael nor I have any knowledge of what it’s like to be a black woman. Nor did we ever talk to someone who did.

And if you’re someone like us that has no knowledge of that experience, you probably didn’t notice. But that doesn’t mean it’s a good thing.

Imagine if we made a movie about your life, and we just made everything up. We invented people you never knew, we gave you a job you never had, and we had you say things you’d never say. The movie might even be a good movie, but your response would be, but that’s not my life - that’s not me.

Now imagine we put the movie out, and people that never met you assumed that was what you were like. When people met you for the first time, they assumed things, because, you know, they’d seen the movie.

That’s what misrepresenting people does. It not only makes them feel not seen, it falsely represents them, spreading lies, often stereotypes, making people believe things about them that aren’t true.

Our move towards diversity is just us trying to better reflect the world and the people in it. We’re trying to do to everyone else what a certain portion of people get every day without ever having to think about it.

But why are we “making it the forefront of their character”? We’re not. We’re making it a part of their character. But in a world where you’re not used to ever seeing it, it feels louder than it is. Things that are a natural part of the world that you’re used to feel like the background of the story because you understand the context to it.

If a man kisses his wife before going off to a battle, that’s not a big deal. It’s just a thing a husband might do to his wife when he leaves. It’s not the forefront of his character. It’s just part of his life. But you’ve seen it hundreds of times, so it feels normal.

When someone does something that isn’t your lived experience it pulls focus. It seems like a big deal, but only because it’s new to you. It’s just as mundane a thing to that character as the man kissing his wife is to him.

Even the turn “pushing” implies that it’s unnaturally here, that we’re forcing something that naturally shouldn’t be. But why? That thing exists naturally in the real world, and it doesn’t make the real world any less. Maybe you’re less aware of it, but is making you aware of how others live their life “pushing” something on you?

How you live your life is represented constantly, everywhere. Why isn’t over-representing your experience at the expense of everyone else’s “pushing” it? Why is media only being the experience of those in power the “proper way”?

Having more depth and variety doesn’t lessen stories. It makes them deeper, more rich, more nuanced. In short, it makes them better stories. In my former life, I was a professional writer. I took a lot of writing classes. One of the truism of writing is “speaking truth leads to better stories”.

There’s another famous quote: “When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.” You’re used to being over-represented, so being a little less over-represented feels like something has been taken from you. But really it hasn’t. Having a better sense of the rest of the world comes with a lot of benefits.

I’ll use food as an example. Let’s say all you were ever exposed to was the food of your heritage. Yeah, that food is really good, but sometimes isn’t it nice to eat foods of other nationalities? Isn’t your life better that you have a choice? Isn’t your exposure and access to the food of other nationalities a positive in your life?

Exposure to variety is a positive. It allows you to learn about things you didn’t know, experience things things you’ve never experienced, and get a better sense of understanding of your friends and neighbors.

Our actions are not to harm anyone, and if you think that’s what we’re doing, please take a minute to actually absorb what I’m saying. You’ve spent your whole life metaphorically eating one type of food, and we’re just trying to show you how much you’ve missed out on.

And while this might not impact you directly, we’re making a whole bunch of people felt seen. We’re bringing joy. Think of it this way. We make a lot of cards. Not every card is for you. But if it makes someone else happy, if they get to include it in a deck, and it makes Magic better for them, how is it harming you that we include it? You have so many cards that you can play.

To this poster or people that share their viewpoint, the narrative that a gain for someone else is an attack on you is just not true. As I just pointed out above, you play a game all about personal choice, about players getting to choose how they play and enjoy the game. Why should life be any different than Magic?

Thanks for reading.

[velvetvexations]

*constantly talking about how stupid and selfish "TRFs" are* *contantly implying you understand gender better than most other trans women* *contantly harassing and insulting random people making posts* oh my god thank you for all the love! this is such a kind and accepting space 🤢

I mean yeah I am constantly excessively kind and patient when people aren't just saying "fuck trans men, those stupid bitchcunt vulva-havers for thinking they don't have it easy." This is extremely consistant in all my interactions. The few times when I was snappy at someone who didn't earn it I've directly apologized without prompting.

Recently someone who really badly wanted to be my friend and kept offering to hang out on Discord because she thought I was "lonely" got really dramatically upset because I blocked her after she defended misgendering trans men, describing this as me being a "single issue voter" because we disagreed about "one thing" and honestly that was hilarious. Truly wild behavior.

Like if you aren't going out of your way to be absurdly cruel to other people, yes, this blog is a place of love, and polite, reasonable engagement. If you've not had that experience, consider asking yourself why. And again, if any TRF, even one of the mega-popular ones I've ground my teeth over, wanted to say they were sorry for the rhetoric they've encouraged and personally thrown at others, I would support them. I would throw my weight entirely behind the effort to give them full amnesty for the many, many horrible things they've done and said.

Gotta say though, I'm not sure what's wrong with the accusation I think I understand gender better than some other trans women. Presumably if you put me and whoever you favorite TRF is in a room together, you would say one of us understands gender better than the other, right? I think I have a far more reality-based view than someone who thinks every Pastor Billy Bob who hates queers secretly agrees with us being women, and I'm pretty sure that's actually the majority opinion among trans women because I have a fairly high opinion of trans women as a demographic and it would be insulting towards them to even suspect otherwise.

[youruinedmylifebynotbeingreal]

Lesbian Regina George that, pan Karen Shetty that. But what about queer Gretchen Wieners. “What’s Wrong With Me” is RIGHT THERE.

[not-gray-politics]

It's been a while but I do want to address this, because forgive me if I'm misinterpreting this, but let me ask you something: I'm transmasc. (Genderfluid with a masc lean). I don't bring this up often here, but I grew up in a misogynistic cult, where i was taught the most rancid aspects of purity culture and had my autonomy taken away from me for roughly 20 years. I didn't get to cut my hair or wear pants for the first time until about 2 years ago. Even now, regardless of if i bind or cut my hair extra short or wear masc clothes, I don't pass as a man. Queer, but not a man. Most transmascs I've met also don't pass as cis, hrt and surgery are pretty damn hard to get in this economy. Some of them don't even care about passing! It's a very individual thing.

Tell me- How have I, by being masc, benefitted from the patriarchy? How am I privileged for being male?When I'm a man, what do I get out of it?

A non-conclusive list of people that I wouldn't say get the full extent of "male privilege" and/or "protection from consequences":

Transmascs who don't pass

Gay men who don't align with cultural expectations of masculinity

Poc whose culture or expression doesn't align with white standards of masculinity

Transmascs who pass but grew up being viewed/treated as women

Transmascs whose identity is fluid or nuanced (bigender, genderfluid, genderqueer, nonbinary men, etc.) And not limited to one part of the binary

Gnc men

Masc lesbians

Fat men

Intersex men

Trans women who pass as male but haven't come out yet

Anyone with more than one the above identities that overlap with eachother

Do some of them still get some amount of privilege? Sure, maybe. I'm not denying that male privilege exists! I've experienced the worst parts of the patriarchy firsthand! But when you assume that all provilege is equally applicable, and that all privileged individuals have yet to challenge or confront their privilege, that all of them are simply terrible or stupid or dangerous without exception.... not only are you, again, reinforcing the binary in a way that's harmful, as I've already explained; you're excluding a massive part of the queer community, and you're refusing a space for victims of the patriarchy to discuss what they've gone through or bring solidarity to the cause. Men can be victims of this shit too. A lot of men go through relentless harassment and assault for being men """wrong""", and they deserve a place in our community too. They don't deserve to be lumped in with their harassers and assaulters or excluded purely on the basis of "men are icky".

I understand if someone personally doesn't want to interact with men due to their own personal trauma, but framing the idea of gender seperationism as morally correct or proclaiming yourself a "proud misandrist" like the people I originally referred to often do, is an entirely different issue and should be called out when we see it.

Hey I'm just gonna say it. A lot of you in the sapphic community have "terfs dni" in your bio while repeating terf rhetoric that keeps trans men in the closet and bi women ashamed. And you need to reflect on that.

There is no "men are inherently biologically bad" argument you can make that doesn't lend itself to terf rhetoric and misogyny. Adding a "but like, trans girls don't count ☆" or "except the gays ♡" or "except my transmasc boyfriend [I'm going to subtly or unsubtly imply he doesn't count as a real man whether I realize it or not]" does not suddenly make it a progressive argument. [Especially you fuckers who adapt it to mean "actually all trans women are good and pure and innocent and all trans men are dirty evil misogynists just like cis men". You are doing active damage to the trans community. You are not an ally. You're doing toxic gender roles. Fuck off.]

Bioessentialism will never serve the queer community. I don't care if you make minor adaptations to it to make it seem nicer and less bigoted. It will always serve to harm trans people, divide people into a binary, and maintain misogynistic ideas that men are inherently evil and therefore can't be held responsible for their actions, that women have to take the responsibility for "protecting themselves" instead of believing that men can and should change so that no one needs protecting.

It's a lack of belief in feminism's ability to meaningfully change or solve anything and I'm tired of everyone acting like it's not.

[losermothman]

I don’t think you guys UNDERTSNAD how important Edwin and Charles’ relationship is to me as an aroace person. THAT is what I want from a relationship. Something such an obvious mix of romantic and platonic and I-don’t-even-know that all the lines blur bc the only important thing is that you love them like you’ve loved nothing else and are so devoted that you would do nothing else but love and protect and cherish them for all your worth. isn’t it the love that matters more than what type of love it is? why do their labels need to be so cut and dry? why does it need to be anything more? why can’t they just be? why can’t they love each other how they want to love each other? why do they need to be anything else?

[hermitcraftx]

Why the FUCK are Southerners under the impression they're even welcomed on the internet ANYMORE????? Sorry but this is genuinely fucking rancid I feel fucking unsafe knowing that my spaces are being invaded by you fucking people. Fucking disgusting that it's 2024 and we can't hold piece of shit racists and Confederate nazis accountable for literal fucking war crimes and slavery anymore.

hey man. whats going on. this is such a weird thing to say to someone else on the internet life would be so beautiful if you stepped outside and talked to a real person for once. btw did you know the south is mostly full of poor people and black people and acting as if being from a place makes a person inherently a bigot is very weird almost as if it's pushing a classist narrative. Thats so wacky lol

[bedforddanes75]

my issue with terminology discourse isnt that i think everyone's stupid and sensitive it's that literally nobody explains the meanings of things and then get pissy when people dont know what things mean

[pochapal]

had a migraine all day then sat in the shower for almost an hour rotating life is strange thoughts in my mind and now the headache's gone and i'm also mad

[comfortstars]

no actually. Can I be honest for a second. I know I said I wasn't gonna talk about it anymore but idgaf

[butchladymaria]

I agree with your list ! People being asshole about lesbian & other headcanons gtfo! That list could work for many other things too.

But to be sure everyone don’t mix thing up i just want to point out that not liking/ not being fan of an headcanon don’t equal  being an ass about it. It’s the mean actions or words afterwards that are bad. 

hey! i’m glad you found it generalizable. there’s a lot of things on there that get used against pretty much any “diverse” perspectives both inside and out of fan spaces. as for your second point, i don’t disagree with you. there are some queer headcanons that i don’t personally hold, but i’m going to be cheering them on rather than contributing to the negativity we face on a regular basis. you can personally hold a different headcanon without being a jerk.

this is not @ you anon, but there are a lot of people who believe that underrepresented groups seeing themselves in characters — whether through the lens of race, gender, sexuality, disability, etc — is “politicizing” fandom and ruining it somehow, as though a white/cishet/male/abled perspective is the default in art and anything else is “tainting” the “pure” fanspace. some of them might believe those voices can exist — so long as they keep their heads down and don’t take up too much space. the fact of the matter is that’s a bigoted thing to believe. our existence has been politicized against our will. for the marginalized, fan spaces are just another front we have to push to participate in. if someone finds themself constantly disliking one specific type of queer/nonwhite/disabled/etc. headcanon and feels the need to say over and over how much they don’t like it, they ought to seriously interrogate why that is.

[slimyenemy]

you really do just get more and more abusive every single day.

[karlachismylife]

Writing Russian-speaking characters

So I have once again been chuckling at some adorable clumsy Russian in Nikolai and Nikto fics, and thus I decided to make a little list that might be helpful for fellow COD writers here. And yes, please, feel free to reach out to me if you need any proofreading of your Russian phrases, I would be glad to assist since google translator can butcher it in ways non-speakers won't be able to notice.

I would really appreciate if you guys shared this post and helped it reach people that might need it, I put way more effort into it than I expected myself <3 Also, I might make a followup with some more words and/or phrases that can be useful, so please feel free to request some, since here I am mostly focusing on terms of endearment.

I will write down Russian words, their (approximate and wonky, sorry for that) transcription/transliteration and what part of speech they are (keep in mind that adjectives can be used as nouns when used to address someone) and provide according translation and use.

Keep in mind that in Russian the gender of the word is important!!! I'll write down them in following order: he/him (он/его) version/ she/her (она/её) version/ they/them (они/их) version. However! They/them is NOT traditionally used as gender-neutral pronouns, it's plural only. Some queer and younger folks do use they/them (myself included), but it does sound wonky as it's direct copy from English. Unfortunately, Russian is not very suitable for gender-neutral writing, but there are ways to go about it (I'll try to note some of that too).

*however, since Nikto is sometimes using plural they/them to describe himself, that would be okay with him since it's plural. I hope that makes sense, lol.

So if you're putting an adjective with a noun (example: милый котик) you have to use an adjective in the correct gender form FOR THE WORD! If the noun (котик here) is masculine, you use masculine adjective form EVEN if you're referring to a person with she/her pronouns.

What is love?

The main thing I noticed is that y'all use a direct translation of the word "love" - "любовь" [l'ubov'] (n) to refer to a person. As in "how are you doing, love?". However, that's wrong. "Любовь" is either a word to describe the feeling, or a name (short version would be Люба [Lyuba]). If you wanna use an affectionate pet name, consider one of the following!

дорогой/дорогая/дорогие [dorogoy/dorogaya/dorogiye] (adj) - means "darling". Often used between spouses. Mostly used to refer to person directly, sounds a little quirky if you use it to refer to them in third person (as in "my darling went out to buy some strawberries").

любимый/любимая/любимые [l'ubimiy/l'ubimaya/l'ubimiye] (adj) - means "beloved/loved/loved one" and is probably the closest to "love". You can use it to refer to person directly or to talk about them in third person (as in "can't wait to see любимую". Also yes, the endings are changing depending on the case and I'm not entirely sure how to explain this concisely without going deep into grammar lol).

милый/милая/милые [miliy/milaya/miliye] (adj) - the word means "cute/cutie", but is also used as a general terms of endearment, like "sweetheart". Mainly to refer to someone directly, using it in third person is a little old-fashioned I'd say. Also commonly used by people outside romantic partnership, a kind old lady can definitely call you over with this one asking to help her read expiration date on a milk bottle or something.

любовь моя [l'ubov' moya] (n + adj/pronoun) - okay, I kinda tricked you saying you can't use the word "love" to refer to a person. If you say this (means "my love"), you can! It's pretty romantic and I am actually the one person that uses this daily, otherwise it's either very romance-novel/old-fashioned sounding, but there are moments when it's perfectly suitable. Have that fairytale moment! Also please note, that while "моя любовь" [moya l'ubov'] (adj/pronoun + n) is grammatically correct, it sounds kinda weird if you use it to address the person directly (like in a phrase "my love, you shine brighter than the stars"). While Russian doesn't have particularly strict rules about word order, it does matter to some extent, and this is a prime example: people just use one order way more often that the other.

Pocket-sized

I've already told somewhere here my favourite Nikto fic moment: the sweetest, romantic moment, interrupted by him calling reader "детёныш", which means "cub" as in baby animal. And while my parents do use this word affectionately, I can assure you, most people don't, and it was clear that this was a result of a clumsy translation of "baby" or something like that. So here are some variants for words like baby, little one and such!

ма��ыш/малышка [malysh/malyshka] (n) - I'd say this feels more "little one" than "baby" to me, it's a tad less sexually charged if you get what I mean. Also, you call "малыш" a person of any gender/pronouns, while "малышка" is strictly for she/her. Obviously can be used for kids too.

детка [d'etka] (n) - this one is definitely "baby" or "babe" as a term of endearment, calling a real kid this would be WEIRD if you're not a really old granny. I would also say that it's more commonly used to refer to female partners, but that might be just my perception and experience. It's still okay to use both ways. Also this word can be very much used if you need a little bit of sleazy/catcalling/bad pickup line energy, like someone shouting after a girl passing by on the street. Yuck.

маленький/маленькая [mal'en'kiy/mal'en'kaya] (adj) - this just means "little" or "small", I'd say it's used less commonly and usually in this form "маленький мой/маленькая моя" [mal'en'kiy moy/mal'en'kaya moya] (adj + adj/pronoun). I will expand on this a little later here! Can be used to refer to kids too.

All kinds of fauna

While poor детёныш is reserved for furry freaks like yours truly, there are some animal nicknames that are very widely spread! Here are some that I think would be most useful for y'all. Granted, some people think that these are a lil' bit cringey, but I think it really just depends on what you're used to hear around you. So if I think calling someone a cub is cute, and bunny is cringe, that probably says more about me :D

котик [kot'ik] (n) - this is a term of endearment for a cat. NOT same as kitten, mind you! Mostly used to refer to men (since the word is of masculine gender) - in my experience.

котёнок [kot'onok] (second o here is like ö in German) (n) - now THIS is "kitten". I would say this is more gender-neutral than the previous one, but the word is still masculine gender.

зайка [zayka] (n) - I believe this would be an equivalent to "bunny", although it's actually a cute word for a hare, not a rabbit. Definitely used for all genders (also the word can be both masculine and feminine gender), also is okay to use referring to kids (even teachers that are into endearing nicknames can call pupils this and it's not weird. well, in elementary school). You can also say "зайчонок" [zaych'onok] (n) which is a word for baby hare, even cuter.

рыбка [ribka] (n) - a term of endearment for a fish. I think it's viewed as a bit old-fashioned and thus only used jokingly nowadays, but you know what? Nikolai could pull this off 100%. Bonus points if it's "рыбка моя" [ribka moya] (n + adj/pronoun). Only used for women and the word itself is of feminine gender.

медвежонок [medv'ezhonok] (n) - now, I actually have never met someone who would call their partner this, but I myself would (and I definitely saw it in some media, but that's obv not too reliable). It's a word for a bear cub, so I think it's cute to call a huge ass bear of a military man this word. It's of masculine gender, but I would say it's okay to call a she/her person this too. ALTHOUGH there is a grammatically incorrect (but this only adds to cuteness as it often happens) word "медвежонка" [medv'ezhonka] (n) - this would be a female bear cub. My family uses this word, I use it, no, it won't be in a dictionary, but everyone will understand what you mean. Is okay to use for kids too.

щенок [sh'enok] (if it helps, щ is like German "schtsch", like in Borschtsch, like sh but soft) (n) - now, this actually is not used as a term of endearment, it's "puppy" and it's suitable for degradation. The word is of masculine gender, but you can call anyone this to be honest. You can tell Nikto he's "глупый щенок" [glupiy sh'enok] (adj + n) (silly puppy) and that man will either bark for you or gut you. If you say "тупой" [tupoy] (adj) (dumb) instead of "глупый" [glupiy] (adj) (silly), it will be downright offensive. You can say "щеночек" [sh'enochek] (n), which is an endearing term for a puppy, so it's a little bit sweete. OR you can use my personal favourite - "щен" [sh'en] (n), which is actually also incorrect, but if you've ever heard of a great poet and poetry innovator Mayakovskiy, he was called this word by Lilya Brik. I do NOT have the time to unpack that wild relationship (there was a throuple involved. Russian poetry scene of early XX century was WILD and it's my favourite poetry period hands down), but it's pretty famous. The word "щен" consists of the word "puppy" but with the end diminutive suffix cut off. The trick is, that while some words return to their non-diminutive form with such procedure, this one does not - so you're basically inventing a new word that now sounds quite degrading and harsh, but also sexy as hell (personal opinion). I would definitely call Nikto this word.

птичка [ptich'ka] (n) - that's just "birdie", but I actually wouldn't say many people use it to refer to each other. HOWEVER, Nikolai 100% calls his steel bird this. The word is of feminine gender and if you are calling a person this, it's probably more suitable for a woman.

цыпа [tsipa??] (n) or even цыпочка [tsipoch'ka] (n) - that's a chick, like a baby hen, used only to refer to women (feminine gender word). Honestly I only heard this in foreign films dubbed in Russian or like in jokes/sarcastic phrases. It's kinda rude/indecent/vulgar and the only man that can say that and stay attractive is Captain Jack Sparrow (he used this word in Russian dubbed Pirates like once maybe, talking to Elisabeth, and that was funny cuz he be crazy like that). But maybe you want this, idk.

And everything sweet

Unfortunately, I haven't seen anyone translate the word "honey" as "мёд" directly, that would be another brilliant laugh (cuz it's wrong to refer to a person like that), but there are some "sweet" words to use!

сладкий/сладкая [sladk'iy/sladkaya] (adj) - this just means "sweet", like the taste, and it can be sexy or sleazy or just cute. You can call a kid this word too, BUT for a child would be better сладенький/сладенькая [slad'en'kiy/slad'en'kaya], which is like one step further into diminutive-endearing department.

конфетка [konf'etka] (n) - this is a diminutive word for a candy, a sweet, like a caramel or chocolate or whatever. Not very common, but is cute. Also a way to describe a sexy/good-looking person (more likely a woman, the word is of feminine gender) or just something really good (a bit jokingly). The latter is usually used in a phrase build like "не ..., а просто конфетка", which is roughly translated "that's not ... that's just plain candy". Might have an actual English equivalent that I can't think of right now. Maybe "a total snack"? Probably that one, yeah. Can be said about anything, a car for example.

Shiny

I wanna stick in a few more words of endearment and they all are kinda shiny, lol, so here you go!

солнце [solntse] (n) - this means "sun", like that big glowing thingy in the sky, but it's very welcome as a term of endearment. This word is NEUTER gender (explained in the next section). Viktor Tsoy (a famous rock musician with an unfortunate fate and immortal cultural heritage) had a song ("Cuckoo" - "Кукушка") with the words "солнце моё, взгляни на меня" [solntse moyo, vzgl'yan'i na m'en'ya] (my sun, look at me), so "солнце моё" (n + adj/n) is a good one. You can also use "солнышко" [solnyshko] (n) which is an endearing version of "sun", so it's like "sunshine". Also of neuter gender! Can and should be used to address kids too.

золотце [zolottse] (n) - this literally means like... a little gold? A little golden piece? I don't think there's a proper equivalent in English. It's a word of neuter gender and it's very much used for kids too. Another version would be "золотой мой/золотая моя/золотые мои" [zolotoy moy/zolotaya moya/zolotiye moyi] (adj + adj/pronoun) - this is "my golden", it's a little less common and I feel like it's often used to be condescending, but it's not inherenrly bad, so you can use it for a loved one.

сокровище [sokrov'ish'e] (once again it's щ, look previously) (n) - this is a word of neuter gender and it means "treasure". I personally adore this one and it's pretty common. Can be used for any gender and for kids!

звёздочка [zv'yozdoch'ka] (n) - this is like a little star/starshine. Wouldn't say it's that common, but I use it a lot. The word itself is of feminine gender, but you can call anyone that! Or you can say "звезда моя" [zv'ezda moya] (n + adj/pronoun), which means "my star". Also feminine gender word, but can be used for anyone.

This dog belongs to...

I am not going to go too deep into sexy/sex-related words in this part, because I'll just get overwhelmed with the amount, but I want to go over some words of ownership quickly.

мой/моя/мои/моё [moy/moya/moyi/moyo] (adj/pronoun) - this means my/mine. It goes really well with many words in this list, especially the adjectives, like "мой дорогой" [moy dorogoy] (my darling) or "солнышко моё" [solnyshko moyo] (my sun/sunshine). The last version, "моё" [moyo] is neuter gender, it's NOT gender-neutral! It's the "it/its" I guess (not exactly, but let's just stick with this simplyfied explanation). Previously there were some words of that gender, so here you go. BTW I would say that in speech it's more common to put this word before adjectives and after nouns (like in my examples), just sounds better, but it's not wrong to do otherwsise. You can also just say "ты мой" [ti moy] (you're mine). Also can be used to refer in third person, like when you're discussing your man with your gossip girls, you can just go "а мой вчера..." [a moy vch'era] (and mine yesterday...) and everyone will understand that you mean your man. Unless you wee discussing pets, then they'll probably assume it's your cat.

хозяин/хозяйка [khoz'yain/khoz'yayka] (n) - saw this one too btw. This means "owner" or kiiiinda "master/mistress", and they are gendered, so it's actually wrong to call a woman "хозяин" unless there's some kinky genderfuckery going on (which I'm all for, but like. you get what I mean).

господин/госпожа [gospod'in/gospozha] (n) - okay, THAT is definitely master/mistress, also gendered. Standard BDSM terminology and yada yada.

And that's where I'd like to wrap up for today! However, if needed, I can write more - perhaps with curse words or with sex-related words, or some phrases? I dunno, you tell me! Once again, I kindly ask you to share since I think this will help people (and while I understand the struggle of writing in another language and especially using words from language you don't speak at all, I can't help but be a little thrown off every time I see a wrong use of words in text).

Also remember: while Siberia is bigger than USA or even Canada, there are still other regions in Russia that deserve to be mentioned <3 a lot of places with mindblowing nature, cultural heritage etc.

[fucktoyfelix]

This is actually a useful thing to understand how to spell out. What exactly is wrong with puritanical attitudes towards sexuality? TW: Discusses body image issues, suicide, STIs, sexual assault etc

1. It fosters fear, disgust and loathing of our bodies. By hiding the human body as soon as we are born, and treating it as an object of inherent shame: THAT creates trauma. Shame is one of the primary sources of trauma, its the fuel and lets trauma burn. Those raised in nudist societies, and children raised in households where nudity is treated in a neutral and non-sexual tend to have a much more positive relationship with their bodies as adults. This makes complete sense when you think about it. Going through puberty not knowing if your body is "normal" terrifies children in ways that stick with them for life. In fact, most cultures outside of the Unites States aren't as strange about non-sexual nudity actually...and are healthier for it. We can't have body positivity as long as we are literally criminalized for having an uncovered body. 2. It creates fear, shame and disgust about sex. Most people have sex at some point in their lives. No one would be here at all without it. Most people have sexual desires which lie outside their control. When people are ashamed of those desires, it leads to self hatred, and depression and anxiety. This shame is just as traumatic as bodily shame. When sex is normalized, and treated with the same candor as any other hobby: it becomes less apt to traumatize people.

3. Puritanical attitudes towards sex limit sex education. When people are too ashamed to talk about sex, people don't learn about pregnancy, stis, or consent. All of these things can and do kill people when they aren't addressed with an open dialogue.

Sexual shame leads to people too ashamed to buy condoms, to talk to their doctor about birth control, to ask their partner to use protection, to get tested...the negative health impacts of sexual puritanism have a massive negative effect on society.

4. Sexual shame leads to poorer communication in relationships. Ohh if I had a dime for every person i knew who ruined their relationship because they felt too guilty to talk to their partner about their sexual feelings...Not just that, but the general body shame that comes with puritanism blocks people from connecting to one another too. Have you ever avoided getting close to someone because you were ashamed of your body? If not, I guarantee you know someone who has.

5. Misogyny! Puritanical sexual believes hold that women are not capable of sexual agency. That only men should initiate sex. That women should only ever want babies and not pleasure from sex. All of this rolls right into the next one:

6. Victim blaming in sexual assault. When women are the gatekeepers of sex, its easy to blame them when they 'fail' to protect their chastity when someone violates their trust. This isn't something that just effects women: as the same attitudes hold that men are not capable of experiencing sexual assault. The lack of education and discussion about sex in a sex-negative world inherently prevent the open dialogues necessary for creating and maintaining consent culture.

7. Suppression and marginalization of the queer community. If we're too ashamed to talk about sex, we'll be too ashamed to talk about sexuality. Puritans can't accept any deviation from gender norms either. Anything other than sex between a cis man and a cis woman for the purpose of making a baby is a deviant kink, a mental illness, and needs to be wiped out. Its important to point out that many queer people hold puritanical values about sex: believing that they can achieve sex negativity and queer liberation at the same time. However, sex negative movements always rise with censorship and discrimination of queer people...because queer people are inherently considered deviant by the vast majority of sex negative "allies". It's very dangerous to forget this.

8. Censorship of art. Who decides what is sexual and what is not? Its easy to agree that sex needs to be hidden...but it never takes long before the definition of what is "sexual" expands. Even women's breasts are considered sexual in the United States. Its so normal for Americans to think of them that way that women can't feed their children in public. Drag queens face violence for reading at libraries. Books get taken off the shelves. Artists are bullied offline.

9. Censorship of scientific exploration. Scientific research into reproductive health, sexual behavior, gender identity and more are often hindered due to the "moral objections" of puritans, delaying progress and understanding. That's just off the top of my head. I think its time for people to take how problematic 'puritanism' is more seriously. As we see fascism rear its ugly head all over the world, we're going to see a lot more talk about 'degenerates'...and we know where that kind of talk leads.

[heehoothefool]

"Are cishet ace/aro men queer" holy fuck you people are just awful huh. Really just showing that we haven't moved past the Basically Straight ideology.

As a cisgender, heteroromantic ace individual myself, allow me to tell you a little bit about myself.

I spent most of my life wondering what was wrong with me. I knew very quickly that many of the people who confessed their love for me would not want me the moment they found out I was averse to sex. I would daydream of various men I'd had crushes on over the years spending time with me in ways I was comfortable, but rarely did I confess my feelings because a simple saying rang in my ears.

"You'll never find a man who will love you without sex."

And the people in my Instagram DMs who would call me baby and then ghost me after they figured out the flag in my profile picture spoke volumes to that. I was only desirable because I was physically attractive. No one wanted to love my personality, not if they couldn't also fuck me. It just wasn't an option.

I have been ostracized. I have been told I don't belong. The straight community does not want me because I do not actively desire sex. The very people you're trying to lump me in with because I'm "basically straight" will not claim me because I am not like them.

I am The Other. I am Less Than. I am Strange. I am Queer.

A person born male, who identifies as a man, and is attracted to women exclusively but only in one way (romantic) or the other (sexual) is queer.

That is a man who either does not desire sex, and is therefore Not Really A Man by society's gender standards and expectations, or does not desire a romantic relationship/wife/girlfriend and is called a manwhore dirtbag who sleeps around or is asked eternally by family and maybe partners who don't get it When He's Going To Get Married.

To be straight requires you to identify with your gender assigned at birth, to feel romantic attraction to the opposite gender exclusively, to feel sexual attraction to the opposite gender exclusively, and to only desire monogamy in that relationship.

A man, born a man, who is not romantically attracted women, but sexually attracted to them, is not straight.

A man, born a man, who is romantically attracted to women, but not sexually attracted to women, is not straight.

There is no debate. Yes, even the Demisexuals and Demiromantics. Yes, even the ones who are capable of feeling these things only under the right conditions.

They're all queer. Every single one. Because they deviate from the idea that Every Man Wants To Fuck A Woman And Be A Loving Husband By Default.

If you disagree with any part of this post get the fuck off my blog. If you try to start shit in the notes or in my asks you're getting blocked.

We're here. We're queer. Fucking deal with it.

[genderqueerdykes]

if you hear about lesbian men and instantly jump to taking it in bad faith to assume the worst possible conclusion in your mind, that it means that cishet men can be lesbians, you are catastrophizing, and that is not a healthy response to learning about this knowledge. jumping to the conclusion that your lesbophobic senator now identifies as a lesbian man because we're "allowed men to do that" is catastrophizing, and an unrealistic leap in logic to make.

if cishet men wanted to identify as lesbians, they would already be doing it. cishet men who find lesbian erotica hot are almost always the first ones to tell you how badly they hate irl lesbians and how gross they find us. if cishet men wanted to be lesbians, they already would be.

ask yourself why you didn't consider bigender and multigender lesbians. ask yourself why you didn't consider non binary and genderqueer lesbians. ask yourself why you didn't consider intersex lesbians. ask yourself why you didn't consider trans men who still feel connected to the lesbian community. ask yourself why you didn't consider bisexual people.

you MUST ask yourself: why is my initial reaction to queer identities i haven't heard of before hostility and outrage? why are you instantly taking things you haven't heard of in bad faith? who are you enraged on the behalf of? did anyone ask you to do that? did anyone ask you to stew in rage? is fuming silently alone in your room over something you cannot change helping you?

these are extremely important questions to answer. instead of taking out your outrage on someone else, you must look inward.

if you encounter a bigender wo/man who is a lesbian and think to yourself "well they're a woman so it cancels out their manhood, so they're not a lesbian man they're just a lesbian woman" you are disrespecting that persons identity and misgendering them. if you encounter a genderfluid lesbian who is a man at times, and say "well they're a woman most of the time, so it cancels it out, their manhood isn't a part of their lesbianism," you are disrespecting that person's identity and misgendering them. if you encounter a trans man who is also a lesbian and say "that's not right, trans men can never be lesbians, they're clearly confused/wrong" you are disrespecting that person's identity. you do not have to undermine someone's manhood in order to accept their lesbianism.

why did you choose to instantly jump to the worst possible conclusion (in your mind) and take it in bad faith? to what end? to serve what purpose? to keep the lesbian community "pure"? stop sucking up to rad fems and accept that queer experiences are way more broad than a single sentence descriptor of an identity. queerness does not exist in a vacuum, it is different for every person who experiences it. jumping to assume that lesbian men are "invading" the community is not a queer friendly line of thinking- you are creating an "us vs. them" binary whether or not you realize it.