#so i just assumed they would inherently Get this

[sassydefendorflower]

I feel horrible to butt in, but I do in fact think there are some addendums to this post.

For one, Margaret Thatcher and other horrible powerful women are not examples of the matriarchy. Or what a potential matriarchy would be like.

Every extremely powerful women, who then used that power to abuse it, did so in a patriarchal structure.

I am not saying that to defend these women. Their choices are their own. Everyone has the same capacity for evil, be it man, woman, queer or not.

I just want to clarify that we legit do not know what a matriarchal power structure would look like. Because from an anthropological standpoint there has never been a large scale matriarchy in the history of humanity (as far as we can tell). There have been some smaller groups and cultures, who have structures we would maybe describe as matriarchal, but none of these cultures are comparable on the large scale of the patriarchy. The power structures in those small groups are often genuinely different, because in praxis what we do know of matriarchal societies is completely different from an imagined reversal of the patriarchy as we know it. But, again, we cannot actually make these comparisons, because the few matriarchal societies that exist are also often very rural, and anti-capitalist. They aren't some strange utopia, they are still humans and there are definitely hierarchies at play, but they are simply not comparable to the large scale of the modern patriarchy as it is inherently intertwined with capitalism, colonialism, racism, and classism.

Again, I am not saying this in any shape or form to relieve any women of guilt or the responsibilities for their actions. There is no such thing as a better sex (hell, we really need to reconsider gender as a whole, if you ask me). But.

The patriarchy is sooooo deeply ingrained in our culture - in most human cultures existing right now and throughout history - that we genuinely don't know what a matriarchy would look like.

Hell, in Cultural Anthropology, if you create a genealogy and it is a matri-linear society, do you know what that means? It means that inheritance moves from the BROTHER of the mother to the BROTHER of the daughter (we are talking the inheritance of goods here). We generally assume that there isn't a single group of people where mothers can pass there belongings directly to their daughters as the main line of genealogical inheritance (and if there are deviations from this they are statistically irrelevant). There is bi-linear inheritance, of course, in which the parents equally pass everything down to their children, but that is a relatively recent development, and still always something that happens within a patriarchal society.

An example of a powerful woman (be it the Chinese Empress Dowager Cixi or Margaret Thatcher or Angela Merkel or... you get the idea) will never be an example of what the matriarchy would be like. Because we're thinking of power structures within the confines of what we know: the patriarchy.

And, yes, people who argue for the simple role reversal of Women in Power and Men At The Bottom, are obviously wrong. But they've also obviously never engaged with the theory. Such steep power structures and rigid hierarchical step-ladders would obviously be bad. But any conceivable matriarchy wouldn't be that. Because from the few we have seen throughout history and even right now... we know you always have to answer the question: what do we do with the babies?

And that is a question not easily or logically answered by a simple role reversal.

(and I don't want to equate womanhood with the ability to give birth - truly not. But, statistically speaking, women are the people birthing the most children, and as such, any society in which women are "in charge" the way we observe power structures within the patriarchy, also has to answer the question of what these "women in charge" will do with the possibility of childbirth.)

I am not arguing for the goodness of women. I am arguing for the admittance that we just genuinely don't know what a matriarchy would be like.

(not that is should be our goal to find out)

The power structures of the patriarchy have been historically so all-encompassing for most of us, that we genuinely cannot divorce even the thought experiment of a matriarchy from it.

And this Not Knowing should be part of the conversation.

just so we're clear, replacing patriarchy with a matriarchy would be just as bad because it's the same exact thing. it's a power structure. it lends to systemic abuse.

equality doesn't mean "one gender is better than the other". equality means all genders are on the same playing field. no one gender is better, or worse, than the rest.

women are not inherently kind. women are not inherently charitable. women do not inherently have other peoples' best interests in mind. women are not inherently gentle and nurturing. women are not inherently smarter or dumber than any other gender. women are people, and that means that women are varied. chasing men of that pedestal and placing women there instead will create the exact same problems.

you can run around saying "women are just better than men" but you're doing the exact same thing that's being done to you right now, and that's not how you collapse the structure. you're just taking the same abusive power structure and painting it pink. enough. equality means we are all on the same level. equality does not mean one gender is superior to the rest. got it?

[gatheringbones]

[“In the leather dyke erotica of Patrick Califia and Carol Queen, butch is both a sex toy to be played with and an identity to be fully realized. In these stories, women enjoy slicking back their hair or wearing steel-toed boots to assume a masculine swagger in bed. Queen’s The Leather Daddy and the Femme (1998) has one of the best forced-masculinization scenes I’ve ever encountered. A dyke is taken to a gay male sex party by her new leather daddy fuck buddy; dressed in boy drag, she gets to experience what it’s like to be used like a man by a group of men.

When it comes to hyperbutch symbolism, the leather daddy has long been the most recognizable icon of kinky gay male counterculture. Emerging post–World War II in American urban neighborhoods like SoMa in San Francisco and Manhattan’s meatpacking district, this form of queerness incorporated motorcycle gear like chaps and engineer boots with elements of militaristic uniforms. Immortalized in the art of Tom of Finland and Chuck Arnett, the leather daddy figure is all about bulging muscles and cruising eyes, hairy, confident, powerful.

Leathermen live in a fantasy world of masc-on-masc desire, butch archetypes like motorcycle rebels, sailors, cowboys, and so on cottaging each other in public bathrooms and parks. There’s a reason cosmina chose the leather daddy as her masc example of gender maximalism. But daddy isn’t just a look. In leather culture, “daddy” also means a nurturing dominant, distinguishable from a stricter “Master.” He is a key component of the queering of the family unit, where newly out gay people are guided through rites of passage into adulthood by elders. They learn how to be good lovers, good friends, and good community members, and to one day pass that knowledge along. This kinship has been a form of collective healing and redesign for people who had been excommunicated from their families of origin.

Femmes can be daddies too. There is a very special frisson inherent in a staunchly feminine person in high heels and bold lips who also wants to invoke everything daddy represents. Why, we might ask, would a femme daddy not want to identify simply as a leather mommy? Internalized misogyny may be at play, but I suspect it’s more about the exciting discordance of androgyny. Where a conventional ear experiences disharmony, kinky queers hear intentional instability. Queers are drawn to twists and inversions, to the unexpected, to putting things together that definitionally aren’t “supposed” to go together, to fucking holes (asses) you’re not supposed to fuck with parts of you that aren’t supposed to be meant for fucking (fists). The creation and assertion of the new archetype makes us feel safe that we get to define the terms by which people perceive us, are turned on by us, want to cruise us. The femme daddy archetype is intriguing because it both tells you plainly what it is and eludes your understanding: Which of the qualities of femme and daddy are going to overlap this time?”]

tina horn, from why are people into that? a cultural investigation of kink, 2024

[bambisnc]

          . . SYNC-LOVE

° ˖ ➴ i don't wanna play this stupid love game.

### . STARRING ⌢ OT4 ⋆ crack. fluff. + 0.8k // dating as a bet trope + slight implied angst + intentional lowercase ˖ ✧

🗨️ .. ⌞ XOXO ⌝ kep1ers discography is so fire dude + [m.list]

౨ৎ ˖ 유지민 — ❪ YU JIMIN ❫  

to be fair, karina is too level headed to be inherently okay playing with someone’s feelings and potentially hurting them really bad just “for funsies.” so she’d really need some good manipulation to convince her. but once she commits, you just know she’d go all out. would do it in such a flawless way too; her strategy would first and foremost involve befriending you to gain your trust. only after she knows there’s no way you’d refuse her, would she start dropping hints of her being romantically “interested” in you. there’s no room for error in her plan, after all. but then, she ends up getting too invested in you and your eyes, your smile, your flustered little giggles whenever she acts a little too bold. there’s an actual moment where she can physically feel her entire being go, “oh, fuck.” and suddenly, she’s in too deep. nothing she could do now would be able to justify her actions. while rina’s stewing, wondering if there’s anything, anything at all that she can do to protect you, one of her scumbag friends who urged her towards the bet probably beats her to it, letting info about it slip mid conversation. cue angst of the highest quality.

౨ৎ ˖ うちながえり — ❪ UCHINAGA AERI ❫  

when faced with the idea of the bet, giselle’s actions would solely depend on what’s at stake. only if the money or other perks offered are something she really can’t pass up on will she even consider agreeing. if not, of course, it’s a flat out refusal. but (for the sake of plot) assuming she does agree to it, she’s being straight up with you from the get go. approaches you one day, and tells you all about the bet as diplomatically as she can. my girl really don’t gaf, she’ll ask you to split profits for fake dating her for a couple months. even if by the end of it you don't end up dating, you'll at least have a new partner in crime so it's really a win win! ⋆ if you do end up catching feelings, she'll make so many references to your origin story, everyone around you would be sick of it. would call you the bonnie to her clyde ><

౨ৎ ˖ 김민정 — ❪ KIM MINJEONG ❫  

i’m thinking idiots to lovers, 10k, slow burn. 99% chance that her friends only said it because she's been crushing on you for a while now but refused to admit it. and for the bet, winter really tries hard. like, she really does. but her method of doing it is just … so odd that you’re just left confused about what’s going on. asks you out on a complete whim (like maybe 1 minute after agreeing to the bet), but she’s quite clumsy – embarrassed, even, about it. she's totally unsure of how exactly to go about it – it’s rather endearing, really. so you end up saying yes. mostly only because she’s cute. and then she drags you on a couple awkward dates with her after which she decides to come clean because she feels too bad (also her heart can't really take how you're so ... perfect with her). but lmfao by that time you've probably grown super fond of her so you just kiss her cheek and ask her if you can take her out on an actual, proper date. to make up for the whole bet thing, of course. no other reason! <3 

౨ৎ ˖ 宁艺卓 — ❪ NING YIZHUO ❫  

similar to winter, she tries her hardest (for the plot ><) and honestly it might have had the potential to work as well as karina’s save for the fact that her reputation ended up being her downfall. she’s known for being goofy, funny and silly so you don’t really take it seriously when she pulls up with a whole ass bouquet, chocolates, love letters – any big romantic gesture, you name it, ready to serenade you. hence, the entire process of you actually agreeing to date her ends up being just so, so drawn out. by the end of it you do somewhat catch feelings for real but ningning would be so shocked that at first she'd withdraw from you completely. ghost you for a little before you corner her against a wall or something and demand an explanation. at which point she'd realize that ... you're actually so cute like this? and ... why is her heart beating so fast right now? the judge's ruling is an obligatory happy ending with her impulsively kissing you to stop your rants about how she's such a hypocrite to chase after you and then run away the second you reciprocated. handsomely bribes her friends to never bring up the bet because she's nawt losing you. <3 (you probably alr know though. she ain't discreet.)

𐙚 . regulars : none yet! ⋆

[@bambisnc] 2k25

[major-comet]

#wash sarge and donut would have beaten felix to death with hammers i tell you what

elaborating on my tag from the other day because i haven't been able to stop thinking about it (also i forgot about lopez he would also participate in the hammering). part of the reason I think felix was so successful at at least mostly tricking tucker/caboose/grif/simmons is because everyone on that team was suddenly thrust into a position of responsibility that's frankly pretty new for all of them, even grif who has technically led a squad before and tucker who did all that desert bullshit. so they were all pretty preoccupied with that, and didn't have the *time* to examine felix all that closely. it's so easy to take someone at face value when you meet them under extreme stress.

wash and sarge *are* leaders already, though. leading a squad of hopeless soldiers for the new republic is nothing new for them. (and I wonder how the team assignments would have been changed? would lopez have had a squad of his own, or would he and donut have been lumped together since donut can dubiously speak spanish - great opportunity for comedy, if you ask me. OR would sarge have assumed responsibility for what would have been grif and simmons' teams along with donut and lopez, with wash then taking what would have been tucker and caboose's teams. which could lead to parallels of when grif called matthews simmons, except it's sarge or wash calling one of their soliders by the name of one of the missing four. most emotionally impactful would probably be bitters or palomo respectively.)

wash and sarge are very different people, but i like to think that every now and then their leadership brains come together on the same wavelength, even if they get to that point in very different ways. wash and felix would fucking hate each other, and sarge inherently is wary of anyone not properly aligned with a team (because it keeps ending fucking horribly for them, damn freelancers)

we also know that donut and lopez love getting up to some fuckshit from time to time - i think it's part of the red team rulebook. lopez spent a solid season or so as an antagonist, he would be ecstatic at getting to actually do something about this annoying son of a bitch. team sanctioned violence. and donut has one of the highest on-screen kill counts of the reds and blues by that point, he would've had the hammer in his hands before sarge even thought of it. (also i think felix probably would have been like, extra mean to donut because he's an easy target? and i think sarge and lopez would have one of those like "hey you can't make fun of him like that, only we can do that" type of moments that would have prompted absolutely zero self-reflection about the way that they treat donut, as is standard with these sorts of moments.)

i can clearly see the reunion between the two groups. tucker's like "yeah so we've kind of just been hanging with locus. guys fuckin Scary but eh. scary is kind of just normal for us these days. speaking of scary - the doctor chick keeps trying to jump simmons and grif to study them - keeps calling them "medical miracles" or some shit. otherwise? not a lot. what have you guys been up to?" and wash is just like. "oh, not much." and donut interjects about how the four of them totally pounded a guy together and the others have to be like "WITH HAMMERS. WITH HAMMERS." locus might even be there for the reunion, since he wouldn't have had the heads up about the guys leaving the rebel base from felix - y'know, on account of the hammering. sarge would start monologuing about everything they'd been up to, and simmons would seethe with renewed jealousy towards lopez and donut, as he perceives them as sarge's favorites out of all his kids. all would be right in the world.

has anyone thought about what if Felix and locus swapped what parts of the reds and blues they dealt with, like what if locus took caboose tucker grif and simmons, what then

[starbuck]

was completely mystified for days by my cousins being like “let’s watch a movie!” and then BOTH OF THEM proceeding to stare at their phones throughout the entire film, glancing at the screen only whenever the dialogue or a musical cue implied that something Important was happening, only to realize that the issue is that modern films don’t rely on nearly as many purely visual elements as older films did, so my poor cousins missed over 50% of the jokes because i didn’t think to warn them that, when watching films directed by people who got their start before films had dialogue, you actually need to WATCH them to understand what is happening.

[dykedvonte]

I think the most baffling thing about the Tulpar as a vessel to me is the fact that the ship really did only have a one way communication system.

I know it was cheap but even the most basic of vessels regarding major transport would have some way, shape or form for outside communication. Not only that but there was absolutely no form of innate emergency signal to show they may have been offline or in trouble despite clearly having a system to dock credits if they went off course. It's another factor that really shows that bad situations are made to get worse by design. One person who is required to relay all information to the crew and make all the choices without feedback. No way to update or call for help in case of a dire situation. No way to inform of inner personal conflicts and acquire procedures accordingly.

It really is like they are all in some sort of fucked up solitary confinement. They have their own world with strict roles that are meaningless in the end, as long as the cargo makes it, it doesn't matter what happens on that ship to the company. They don't want to hear anything and will come to conclusions on what happened based on how much pay they can withhold from the workers. Even what they do send is short, sterile and corporate to the extent it was likely written and sent out with a command by some random unmanned computer in an office.

There's something to be said about how unfair it is to force absolute power and control onto one person when you as an entity could do so much more to offload it but I've said it many times before so I won't again.

[mildcicada]

[vimbry-moved]

I haven't looked at any other game info at all bc I want experiences to be unspoiled, but the curiosity of the radio shoutout got the better of me (which I think is easily missable anyway? that's how I'm justifying myself), and it made me notice, the way evrart is described in the narration vs kim lol. oh harry's like, Into Him into him.

[theophagie-remade]

"Not actually out but also no one who sees me doesn't think that there's something going on" is a fun state to be in

[devilsskettle]

“sometimes it really doesn’t mean anything though, people just like gory movies and think they’re fun” “the writers didn’t intend that, it’s not that deep” okay and? there is never a one size fits all interpretation, this isn’t going to apply to every single movie that includes gore that has ever been made. but can’t we for once make a generalization that highlights what gore can and often does do instead of making a generalization about why it’s garbage and shouldn’t exist in any media? like can’t i just point out a legitimate general function of gore in many stories and why it can be valuable even in low brow movies that people look down on. also notice that i didn’t say this made gory media smarter or deeper, i didn’t say this had to be the writers’ intention, i said that these are still valuable stories to tell and that they have a place in our media landscape

the thing about “meaningless gore” is that even when it’s apparently not intellectual enough for so many people, it forces the viewer to confront the fact that they are just meat, they are mortal, they can and will eventually die, and pain is part of the human experience that unfortunately none of us will escape experiencing at one point or another. life is both horrifyingly fragile and surprisingly resilient which makes existing in a body a fraught experience regardless of whether we want to acknowledge that or not. “to watch a horror movie is to know that something bad is going to happen. to have a body is really the same thing.” anyway that in and of itself is plenty to grapple with and if a film decides to only deal with that, i don’t think it’s less valuable than any other theme a film might address 

[musical-chick-13]

Because I am aware of how people operate on the Internet: courtesy of being about to post a fic with some uhhhhh much-maligned subject matter, I may turn off anonymous asks for a few weeks.

[pukicho]

do u find it weird that some people just assume u have autism b/c ur good at something. ive been seeing this a lot lately and i would be really weirded out if it happened to me even tho i am autistic 😭

Boring people conflate dedicating one's time to learning a new thing as having a “hyper-fixation” or being "autistic" - this is fucking annoying for two reasons: For one, I am not autistic, so what right do I have to parade around the term? Especially since, as cool as it might sound to be super dedicated toward your hobbies, it also comes with an inherent difficulty to pick up on social-cues and manage one's emotions. I knew someone rather closely with high-support autism, it was not fun; I know life was hard for them - and yeah, he was very good at focusing on his hobbies and interests, but anything outside of those tasks posed to be incredibly difficult and emotionally draining.

Two. Just because I, a neurotypical person managed to focus on my hobbies and get good at them, doesn't mean I have some neurodevelopment disorder. Jesus fucking christ, have you tried making an EFFORT on the thing you're interested in?? People are so used to being boring FUCKS that they forget they can very easily pick up a pen and start drawing, or download a free program and start producing. People go around living their whole lives in awe of the fact that other people aren't boring fucking zombies like them, hooly shit!

[imbecominggayer]

Writing Advice: How To Trauma

In seeing the recent explosion of my "How To Write Trauma With Humanity" post, I have decided to jump back into this topic!

This cute post will be covering how to write complicated individuals with Trauma. From the good, the bad, and especially the ugly since people tend to assume that victimhood is inherently seperated from assholehood

A) Being A Person And Afraid

In my experience, the majority of people with trauma have simultaneously existing fears and desires that often contradict, complicate, or outright hurt themselves.

I call them "fear combinations"

It's these fear combinations that cause people with trauma to often act in ways that seem confusing to outsiders.

For example, the person that's always on the hunt for a relationship but whenever an opportunity for romance strikes, they create relationship havok so the relationship can end

Or a person tries to always sincerely bring attention to themselves but whenver the attention is on them, they just shrug it off as not being worthy of it

This behavior seems kinda weird until you stop to take a closer look at their psyche.

Example 1 is based off of my character, Monday Vũ who has a tendency of jumping into relationships with a sincere desire to find romance until the honeymoon period ends as Monday realizes that if the relationship continues they might have to settle down, forgo their entire identity, and all of their freedom. Then they sabotage the relationship under the guise that it's a selfless endeavour.

Example 2 is based off my character, Niko Preyr who uses grand public gestures and his friendships to prop himself up as a person to be known but if you ever spoke to him then you would quickly see one of the most insecure yet attention-hungry individuals you have ever seen.

"Fear Combinations" are an excellent device in making your characters complex. In my opinion, the trauma-writing scene is just a little bit too neat in it's displays of trauma. It's too logical. It doesn't feel real to my personal experiences.

"he has trust issues because of trauma" What if he also had issues with being clingy to people he sees as trust-worthy?

What if your characters weren't so easy to understand? But I hear you wondering.

How? How do these people manifest such confusing behavior? Why should I add this into my characters?

I'll tell you

B) Instinct Vs Terror, Fighting Against Yourself

In my opinion, "fear combinations" are either caused by the distortion of a human fear or the event in which an intrinsic desire is contrasted against a "survival method".

Humans are born with certain "intrinsic" fears and desires. Humans are born with a desire for belonging, a desire for vulnerability, a desire for self-fulfillment, a desire for independence, a desire for security in themselves.

And with desire comes the fear of "missing out". The fear that you want something that everyone wants but for some reason you won't be able to get it. The fear that you'll loose it. And the fear that your desire might put you into danger. What if you get rejected? What if you never find that group? What if you never find freedom?

In not-traumatized individuals, while it may take some introspection, people can and often do reconcile their fears and desires in a movie-montage when they're children with the help of a strong support system.

In traumtized individuals, what tends to happen is that either the fear of lose and the fear of gain tend to be increased to unpredencented levels

Either that, or a lack of a strong support system doesn't allow the child to safely confront their fears in order to get what they want.

This causes "fear combination"

Niko Preyr has the natural desire to be validated as "good", as "special", as "worthy". A desire we are all born with. However, his upbringing convinced him that he is underserving of what we all need. This causes Niko Preyr to use attention as validation. However whenever he receives this attention, his gifted fear that he is undeserving causes him to reject the attention. But he continues searching for attention to serve that need for validation. A hellish cycle.

Monday Vũ has two understandable fears that we all have. The fear of losing two necessary things: indepedence and security. Monday fears being abandoned, fears being engulfed into relationships. While children and adults can often reconcile those fears in their childhood through a strong support system, Monday never had that. Instead she had her father who emotionally left her and her mother who literally left her. Monday only had herself to rely on, at least thats how she felt. And now, as an adult, Monday wants to fulfill that desire we all have. To be loved. To be connected. But she's afraid. Afraid of being blindsided. Afraid of not having the last laugh. Afraid of being apart of something.

What if that loner wolf found someone who they think is perfect. Someone worthy of their trust. Do you really think that all those years of yearning for love, for connection, are just going to be smothered when they have the perfect person to unleash their childish, half-developed, horrifying emotions onto?

But what next? After we have our character's contradictory fears and desires, after we have the justification for why they feel like this, what's next?

It's this:

C) Self-Destructive Habits: Why We Understand And Can't Change

Let me tell you, unless in very specific conditions such as certain personality disorders and so on, people tend to understand that their behavior is foolish, illogical, and hurting other people.

Monday knows that betraying other people, hurting their trust and faith in their relationships, and entering relationships when she understands her history is bad. It makes her a bad person.

Niko knows that their habits are actively hurting their chances at finding worth.

That "Lone Wolf" understands, deep down, that no single person can handle the high expectations and emotions.

They know it because they can see it. Many times. Monday can see that characters in movies who have their relationship history tend to be casted as the antagonist. Niko can hear the gossip. That "Lone Wolf" can see the way that their loved ones cracked under the pressure and guilt.

So why do they do it? It feeds into their idea of the world. It feeds into what they want to be perceived as. It feeds into their stagnancy.

If Monday can ignore how they hurt others, then they can live under the Martyr label for the rest of their life without having to come to term with the fact that this isn't selflessness, it's called being pathetic.

If Niko can ignore how deep that hurt goes, then they never have to actually make the effort to change. To take that potential and make themselves into something. To be responsible.

If "Lone Wolf" can ignore how nobody can meet their expectations without crumbling down, then they use everyone's failure to feed into their cynical, self-hating notion of how nobody's trustworthy. How they don't have the responsibility of being considerate.

[the-dye-stained-socialite]

men are not inherently evil!!!

I love MEN

I love MASCULINITY

I love BODY HAIR

I love MENS CLOTHING

I love SUITS

I love TIES

I love TESTOSTERONE

I love MEN AND NONBINARY PEOPLE

I love INTERSECTIONALITY THAT INCLUDES MEN OF MINORITY GROUPS AND OPPRESSED IDENTITIES

IF THERE IS A QUEER GROUP WITH NO MEN AND MASCS I DONT WANT IT

THIS INCLUDES CIS MEN

AND CISHET WHITE ABLE BODIED ETC MEN ARE NOT INHERENTLY AN ENEMY

Kill the cop in your brain that separates everything into "men" and "queer" my final message goodbye

This post was made by a NONBINARY TRANS MAN

[lesbianralzarek]

re: wyll's lack of a sex scene

"its nice that theres an ace option" there isnt. you still have sex, larian just fades to black after 3 seconds of fully-clothed kissing. if you dont want your character to fuck, you can say no. if you dont want to say no but for some reason still dont want to see anything, the game has a nudity censor option

"he was just lowest priority because, out of all the romanceable companions, he puts the lowest priority on sex" lower priority than haarlep? than the drow twins? emperor? the woman who owns his soul gets full-frontal but his own scene cuts to black before he even takes his shirt off. larian puts in the content they think players would enjoy, and seemingly just saw the option to fuck wyll as unimportant to players

"it just wouldnt mesh with his character, hes too romantic" okay but he literally does fuck offscreen in his romance route, so it would in fact be in character for him. also sex isnt inherently impure. this is a less sex-positive take than the generally accepted one in the mormon church (i would know, im exmo). have you never heard the euphemisms "making love" and "intimacy" before? this is a weird take and youre weird for having it

do i, as a lesbian, personally want to see his cock and balls? no. do i think it Says Something when larian just assumes that no one wants horny wyll content in a famously horny game? yes

[genderqueerdykes]

if you are a trans man or masc, masculine nonbinary, genderqueer, genderfluid or other gender non conforming identity, masc gay, a bear, a butch, stud, or boi, or other masculine queer person and don't feel welcome in any queer spaces, you're not alone.

the communities both irl and online have become EXTREMELY hostile toward mascs and men to the point of straight up excluding us and changing their wording to justify their violent exclusion. from renaming nonbinary spaces to "femme & them" and "she+" spaces, to telling men & mascs that they would "Scare" the women and "nonbinary" folks just by being there, as if masculinity and manhood are inherently traumatizing to be around.

masculine and male nonbinary folks have it so hard- most nonbinary spaces are almost definitely women's spaces who also conflate womanhood with nonbinaryhood, and often times just view nonbinary people as confused women. we are not inherently traumatizing to be around: masc enbies need places to go. we are still nonbinary and still trans and still queer for fucks' sake

nonbinary has never and will never mean femme or woman-adjacent inherently. nonbinary means what it means: people who don't or refuse to adhere to the gender binary, regardless of what side it is. masculinity is included in this, femininity is not the only way to be nonbinary.

masc queers do not have to bend over backwards to try to be more feminine and thus "less threatening" in order to have places to go. that's dysphoric and just inaccurate to a lot of queer folks' identity and presentation. it blows my mind because it makes no sense, anyway, even within the gay community, hypermasculinity has been present and even sought after by some people who find it very attractive, twunks, hunks, bears... but between the periods in queer history people started viewing masc gay leathermen and kinksters as the ones who were responsible for spreading AIDS and thus removing them from pride parades,

AND the lesbian separatism moment picking up to remove butches & male & masc lesbians from lesbian spaces identity, paving the way for modern rdical femniism, we've only entered a downhill landslide of hating men and mascs and ultimately trying to erase us from the queer community entirely.

the queer community is not the "women & femmes community". the queer experience is broad and vast, it includes a wide variety of masculine and male experiences, as well as genderfluid, multigender, completely ungendered and other gendered experiences. the lesbian, trans, bisexual, nonbinary, gay and general queer communities aren't the "safe place to hide from men & mascs community" like estranged rdfems and terfpilled trans folk like to tell you they are.

this is the QUEER community and it includes ALL forms of queerness, masc, femme, butch, male, neutral, bigender, neutral, and all. he/shes and he/hims and he/theys and he/its and so on are just as much of a part of this communities as she/hers and they/thems. you can't cast a blanket of "inherently abusive" over all men and mascs and one of "inherently abused/incapable of being abusive" over all women and femmes because that just traps you in a fantasy land that doesn't exist AND it prevents mascs and men from getting the help, resources and community they NEED.

men & mascs are hurt and abused by women & femmes every day and we refuse to speak about them because we live under a white cisheteronormal patriarchy and have complaints about how that functions. the complaints are legitimate but assuming that all men and mascs are oppressing all women and femmes and that women can never be oppressive is a false as hell narrative that actively damages people.

enough is enough. this mindset is hurting people. it's leaving masc and male queers to be estranged, harmed and even dead. i care about you if you're being affected by this mentality and these behaviors. you deserve community, safety, and a sense of belonging, you do belong, even if we struggle to form our own spaces due to unjust hatred. we will do our best to band together and keep each other safe. we must