#you can also have a monogamy-normativity

[meyerlansky]

I have successfully boiled my problem with most of the izzy reads that i hate down to a sentence:

he's not sexually repressed, he's emotionally repressed.

[molsno]

I don't think there's anything wrong with enjoying kids shows as an adult per se, like that's obviously fine by itself. however I think the fact that there are so many Queers™ that almost exclusively watch shows made for children, and that most of those shows were produced by disney, is indicative of a broader trend of reactionary ideologies in mainstream queer society. often they praise these shows for having "queer representation" in some form, such as a gay couple, usually comprised of young children given who these shows are usually about. of course even these meager scraps of representation are often enough to get a show canceled, but the fact is that for them to even be on children's television in the first place, they must be extremely sanitized. disney in particular is notorious for scrubbing any and all content that any hypothetical evangelical conservative might take issue with from their shows, but this is a problem inherent to children's tv.

I say this not to disparage people who like these shows, but to point out that these shows serve to impose heterosexual norms onto queerness, and it concerns me how many queer people seem to be completely fine with this. why should disney channel and cartoon network get to define what an acceptable level of queerness is? the most radical thing you can expect to see is a same-sex couple briefly kissing. they are wholly sexless and sanitized, stripped away of any challenges to heterosexuality, cissexism, monogamy, and patriarchy. Straight People get the idea that they don't have to worry about queerness, as long as it conforms to their sensibilities and doesn't threaten their dominance.

but worst of all is that queer people themselves approve of this sanitization. I suspect the reason that so many queer people's media landscape revolves entirely around these shows is because they seek acceptance into Straight society, and must prove that they won't rock the boat too much. in doing so, they seek out only portrayals of queerness they consider "safe", and eagerly distance themselves from any form of "degeneracy". queer sexuality, for instance, must be a wholly private endeavor, as it is something shameful. any form of kink that isn't acceptable under wider heterosexual norms is something they must vehemently abhor, and engaging in it must be responded to with violence, whether social, physical, or both.

to be clear, I'm not saying that exclusively watching children's shows causes queer people to be reactionary. on the contrary, I think it's the other way around. queer people who already hold reactionary beliefs flock to these shows because it allows them to see themselves in media while still being able to gain temporary, limited access to the heterosexual project and the privileges doled out to its participants. this is deeply disgraceful. not only is the queer project of assimilating into straightness an inherently harmful one given that it necessitates intentionally throwing queer people who can't assimilate due to being trans, black, disabled, poor, etc under the bus and subjecting them to violence; it's also a fool's errand, given that straight people ultimately still hate the queer people that do try to assimilate and will discard them the moment they stop being a useful tool.

[maedelin]

THIS JUST IN!!!!!

Apparently Rogue's character is "ruined" for being interested in Magneto and for not lovin' Gambit the "right" way while he also has previous love interests and an ex-wife in XTAS *blocks and side-eyes blogs like remylebeaugambit* Makes me embarrassed to be a Remy fan rn.

If so-called Rogue fans are so uncomfortable with legal adult Rogue being attracted to Magneto in various media , maybe they should read a Kitty Pryde comic instead or stick to just watching that (actually pretty good ngl) high school AU that is X-Men: Evolution.

Heck, even Sid the sloth from the Ice Age movies gets less slack for dating the much older Brooke who also got magically de-aged just like Magneto. And nobody's saying that Sid is a victim and Brooke is a groomer because the Ice Age fandom is more normal than Rogneto antis and so-called fans of Rogue and Gambit's characters.

Agreed and well met, Traveler! I loved X-Men: Evolution as well. I'm fine with characters having many ships. I'm fond of calling it an armada. :) And my own personal cry is: Monogamy? In this economy?!

I agree with you: the age discourse is just awful. It's so upsetting to me. It's the most basic, reductive, simplistic argument. You can count the years but you add no value or depth to them.

It's not about Rogue being ruined it is about Rogue being ruined for *them*. Reading literacy and comprehension as well as looking at texts dialectically (at the least) is on the wane. You couple this with a strange "purity of concept" that seems to permeate our media, and we get this issue.

If you like a character, then that character is a statement on *you*, *your integrity*, *your morals*, *your ability* to be right. Therefore Rogue doing something against the perceived norm of the story (a story with low stakes, mind. We're less comfortable living in a state of unknowing even more these days) is not only an insult to Remy, but it is also an insult to them, their viewership, their expectations of the character, and ultimately a reflection of themselves.

We see then the knee-jerk reaction to distance, define, and denigrate. Suddenly, we're as obsessed with purity of character and dictating their "best practice" motives. They have to find a way to explain away the fault. Sometimes it's pushed back on the writers (especially if the writer is female...thinking Rebecca Sugar here and the SU writing pool) but often (especially for female presenting characters) the blame is shifted on a literal thought concept. It's insane!

X-Men is a soap opera with powers. Also, the most important thing to remember in my book is the main core of it: the X-Men are people. Not gods (sorry Krakoan Magneto, still love you, baby) but human beings who wish to coexist with you.

With laser beam eyes.

[saym0-0]

hi mezelean marriage tradition dictates that the couple weaves each other necklaces from young branches of the mother tree that she only allows you to have if she approves of your marriage (as in, she somehow makes the branches fall off on their own because. magic religeon tree). mezelean culture strongly values craftsmanship and so making your future spouse a piece of jewellery they're expected to wear near constantly (similar to a wedding ring) is like the ultimate sign of devotion. depending on the people engagement can last anywhere from days to years, since [traditionally] it begins when the mother tree gifts them the branches and ends when the people getting married have both/all (realised in making this post i dont have to make monogamy the norm, W) completed their necklaces. this is when the ceremony takes place. i havent gotten a lot about the ceremony down yet but i know it involves a lot of dancing, very upbeat and fast paced fun dancing.

Joel and Lizzie had three ceremonies, a traditional ocean empire wedding, a traditional mezelean wedding, and a more 'standard' wedding, yk the type most widely known across servers ig. that one was for all the rulers to attend and probably also paparazzi. much more of an official affair than the other two that are much more about their cultures and celebration

[your-astro-mami]

The Astrology Of: Multiple Marriages

The biggest indicators of having multiple marriages.

Uranus in the 7th House

Uranus is the planet of chaos, change, the unexpected. So in the house of contracts, legal ties and marriage it can be indicative that you may find it hard to commit to one person. It can indicate having multiple long-term partners or a relationship with a different dynamic (open relationship, long-distance, polyamory, etc.)

2. Uranus in the 5th House

While the 5th house isn't connected to marriage, it is connected to romantic relationships. It can point to a person who has an unstable love life and commitment with others may require a lot of work. They may find it hard to stay devoted to one person, they can get bored in the relationship, unless that person provides them with the needed excitement.

3. A Uranus-Juno conjunction/square/opposition

Juno is the asteroid of marriage. When there is a hard aspect between Juno and Uranus, there is a chance that a person is likely to have multiple marriages, experience chaos in a marriage, have a marriage with a different dynamic from the norm. This can also be a sign of having a partner who is very different from them. It can make them detached in the marriage.

4. Jupiter in the 7th House

Jupiter is the planet of abundance and it can point to the area of life where you have "a lot" of something. In the 7th house it can point to having multiple partners, marriages. While it can also show having a happy and fulfilling marriage, it can show difficulties with monogamy due to the desire to experience a lot.

5. A Jupiter-Juno conjunction/opposite/square

This can be interpreted in multiple ways. One is having a generous partner, the second would be a happy and abundant marriage, the third would be having many marriages. I think in some cases Jupiter-Juno people can be happier in their second or third marriage due to the experience they gain with the first one.

6. Uranus or Jupiter in the 10th House

The 10th house is marriage as a form of institution or as a life goal, so having Uranus or Jupiter there can point to having 2+ marriages. Imo Uranus in 7th or 10th both show people who find it difficult to stay bonded to contract/legal tie.

7. Ruler of the 7th House conjunct Uranus

I am giving a direct example. You have Virgo on the 7th house cusp. Virgo is ruled by Mercury. In your chart, Mercury is conjunct Uranus. Therefore the ruler of the 7th house is conjunct Uranus. This can indicate having multiple long-term partner, going through multiple legal ties, different dynamics from the norm in your relationships, etc.

8. Ruler of 5th House conjunct Uranus

This is very similar to the previous one, but it's got less to do with marriage and more to do with romantic relationships overall.

9. Mutable sign on the 7th House cusp

Mutable signs: Gemini, Virgo, Sagittarius, Pisces. While this isn't the biggest indicator, it can show that a person is more willing to give up if things aren't working out. Compared to fixed signs, mutable signs don't have a problem of letting go the things that no longer work for them. Gemini and Sagittarius specifically are highly independent and commitment can be difficult for them.

10. Mutable Venus sign

Gemini, Sagittarius, Virgo and Pisces Venus. While this also isn't a big indicator, they seek freedom in their romantic relationships and aren't afraid of letting people go. Unless they have a Fixed moon or Mars. They can have a happy and fulfilling relationship but once things get hard, they are less likely to put effort into the relationship.

11. Sun-Uranus or Venus-Uranus aspects

This is a sign of a highly independent nature for which marriage can be very difficult unless their partner truly respects their freedom and doesn't have a problem with their occasional detachment. Venus-Uranus can require a lot of excitement in love and committed relationships can be boring for them unless their partner provides them with constant stimulation.

12. Mars in the 7th House

This indicates a person who can be domineering in their relationships (or attract domineering people). So there is potential for conflict and marital difficulties especially if their partner has a strong character as well. Divorce is more likely, so there is a higher potential for multiple marriages or long-term relationships.

13. Sun-Jupiter aspects

The Sun-Jupiter aspects generally show a massive ego and difficulty being selfless and considerate of their partner in a relationship. They can be egotistical and will always put themselves first. So if their partner doesn't have a problem with that and is willing to worship the ground they walk on, things can work out perfectly.

If I think of anything else I will add it later.

[bramblewhisker]

RavenBarley stuff has me thinking about sexuality in the clans again.

My general idea of clan cat sexuality is one that you might call "bi-normativity," where intimate relationships (romantic, sexual, familially platonic, etc) are idiosyncratic. Different cats would have different preferences, but your typical cat wouldn't be any more likely to prefer a certain sex or gender as they would be to prefer certain fur colors or patterns. I think monogamy would also be somewhat unusual, as multiple relationships would be seen as a way of creating a stronger network of bonds within the clan (and let's be honestly, across clans as well). Two cats getting together for the purpose of kit-making is often a pragmatic act, just as often happening between friends or clanmates with a strictly "coworker"-esque relationship as between two "mates".

The books themselves obviously present a more heteronormative society, with a focus on toms and she-cats pairing up and making kits (despite not really having the "family unit" per se). I think that's less interesting and less suitable for the setting, but it does mean you could do some sort of really cute coming out story with Ravenpaw and Barley. Maybe Tigerclaw got on his case about not being "masculine" enough for a tom, and maybe Ravenpaw struggled with uncomfortable feelings of attraction toward his objectivelly-attractive mentor (who would NOT have responded kindly were he to find out about it). So then you have Ravenpaw at the barn with Barley and there's so much "oh no he's hot" and fears that Barley would make him leave if he knew. But Barley's from the big city where cats are gay all the time (including him!) and it can get really cute and romantic.

Idk I love them.

[the-togepi-man]

How do you deal with loving multiple people? I've been with my BF for almost a decade and I love him to pieces. Over COVID I made a new gay friend and started having feelings for him. We've hung out a few times and there's always this tension and pretty obvious desire between us. Still I prefer monogomy and wouldn't betray my partner like that. I talked to my partner about these feelings and he gave me a hall pass to fool around with my friend but I felt like that just made my feelings more complicated. Now my friend just recently got into a new serious relationship and I'm really happy for him but also it sortve broke my heart? I just feel like the most selfish person and I don't really have anyone to talk to about these feelings. Everyone has been understanding but I just feel like a monster all the time.

Awesome question, anon I'm going to put the tl;dr up here, then do more under the cut. I feel you, friend. There are days I still wake up and think "I don't deserve this. I don't deserve the love or kindness or patience to figure this out." "Some people search their whole lives for someone like my partner. I am spoiled and bad for loving more., wanting(?) more." But that's not true. You learn by unlearning. Love isn't something that can follow a textbook definition. Relationships are complicated and intricate and trying to put them in a category is stressful and will make you feel bad. I can speak on that from example right now. I love Sean so much that I can't imagine a world where I am not supporting and loving him and saying "thats my man." But I am also quite frankly, falling for another friend who I have been falling for for a few months now.

You learn to accept loving multiple people when you realize your human experience is yours alone to act on

I wont lie and tell you I have all of this beat. I still worry that I am the right thing for Sean (my partner.) I worry that he is one of the most amazing people I have met in my entire life and that he deserves so much more than what I provide. However... I have talked to him about it. And something he loves about me, is that I have that capacity to love. Not to mention, people are not meant to "belong" to someone. If he was unhappy or saw no future, he could have cut this off and lived a life of his own choosing. That's how relationships work. Who I am and WHAT I am bring something to his life that helps he grow and provides something that he wants to nurture and love. I am insanely proud of you for talking to your partner about your feelings. A lot of people don't make it that far. Some relationships don't survive that talk. So talking to your partner as the first step is incredibly powerful. Keep that dialogue open, allow for them to have a space where they can dip out, but also let them know how much you appreciate being able to share these feelings and work through them together.

It sounds like your partner is aware of your feelings and understands that life isn't black and white, and the norms we have established as a society. I think it might also worth be exploring why *you* think you prefer monogamy. Personally I think monogamy is all well and good, and while i wish I could just be a "one and done" kinda guy- I know that's not my heart. I have two friends who have been together forever, and they are also open. While one does fall in love, he also knows he is monogamous in that regard because he just doesn't have the time to provide for two people personally because of how busy his life is and will be. But that doesn't mean he loves anyone any less, he just has his definition of love and what he's looking for. I think in a relationship, if you show that you care and provide and put effort in to that bond, that's what counts. Sean has no doubt in his mind that I love him and still love him even when I've fallen head over heals as I have for someone while I write this. After all, love isn't a pie chart. You don't love one person 70% and another 30%. Each person is their own precious bond, so why should you have to assign them basic terms when that just doesn't do? In my heart I know my love for Sean hasn't wavered at all. So I continue to show that. My partner (and maybe partners one day) are a prize to be won every day, so I will always make sure I follow that philosophy. All this is to say, you have to create your own definition for what love is based on how you feel and what your morals are. It sounds like you're going about this in a way where you're the only one who is really in danger of getting hurt, and man, more than anything I feel you. You're not carrying that weight alone. I can't say it's easy, nor is there a right answer. If the guy I'm in love with (who isn't Sean) got in to a relationship right now, I know it would really do some serious damage to my heart. But that's what I told myself might happen, thats part of being in love and caring about someone. You want to see them happy. It could happen while single too. It's just how life goes. I talk to Sean about it all the time, and how scared I get that he might leave us- even though he's not even *with* us. I am really rambling here, but I guess I am just trying to say that, from what you've said- You're operating as a good person. You love your partner, and have love in your heart for others. You are acting with kindness, you are acting to make sure that nobody besides you feels bad. Your feelings are valid. No matter what anyone says, your feelings are valid.

The human heart isn't something that operates on logic. It follows no societal norms, it challenges your brain, and refuses to silence itself. Which is exactly why you need to listen to it, if only to help yourself understand that your world isn't black and white. You are not evil for loving more than one person.

Keep trucking, anon. Don't beat yourself up over who you are, and show yourself some kindness, as you clearly do for everyone who is involved with you

[heartless-aro]

What is relationship anarchy?

I occasionally see people on here talking about relationship anarchy, but I don’t often see people talk about what that means, so I wanted to explain it for anyone who might not know.

Although relationship anarchy isn’t specifically an “aromantic thing,” the aromantic organization AUREA gives a pretty good definition of what it is. AUREA defines relationship anarchy as “The belief that no kinds of intimate relationships are superior to others, despite some being more highly valued in society. It is usually non-monogamous and is based on the premise that a relationship doesn’t have to conform to socially-prescribed norms. Community interdependence is another important facet of RA (“community not couples”). Opposed to amatonormativity and not specific to aromantics.”

In relationship anarchy, you essentially do away with society’s rules about what your relationships should look like and make your own rules. This means that you don’t compare or rank people/relationships in your life against one another and that you decide how many partners/relationships you want (with the knowledge and consent of all individuals involved), whether that means having no partner, having one partner, or having many partners. It also means that instead of trying to force your relationship to fit neatly into categories of platonic, romantic, sexual, etc., you let your relationship exist as it is, and from there, explicitly communicate with your partner (or each individual partner, if you have more than one) about what you want from your relationship with that person, how you would like to express/explore intimacy with them, etc.

Relationships are often split into categories like platonic, romantic, etc., and from there, societal norms dictate what you can and cannot do in each type of relationship (for example “romantic relationships must involve sex, kissing, cohabitation, and exclusivity/monogamy,” or “in a friendship, you cannot have sex, kiss, live together, raise children, or get married”). Relationship anarchy involves freeing yourself from that and deciding for yourself what will and will not be included in your relationship.

If you have a relationship built off romantic feelings, but you don’t want to kiss your partner, you should ignore the expectation that romantic relationships are “supposed to” involve kissing, and instead clearly communicate with your partner that you don’t want to kiss, and allow yourself to have a romantic relationship without kissing.

Likewise, if you have a relationship based on platonic feelings (e.g., a friendship), and you want to have sex with your partner in that relationship or you want to raise children with them, tell them so and, instead of worrying about whether or not platonic relationships are “supposed to” include these things, allow yourself to have a platonic relationship that involves having sex, or that involves raising children together (so long as your partner consents to this, of course). If you so choose, you can even do away with labels like platonic, romantic, queerplatonic, etc. altogether, rather than try to categorize your feelings or your relationship(s).

Core Beliefs Defining Relationship Anarchy:

So to break down what this really means, I’m going to talk a bit about some of the core tenants that Andie Nordgren, the coiner of the term “relationship anarchy” used to define it. Any direct quotes from this point on will be from an English translation/adaptation of Nordgren’s Swedish language relationship anarchy pamplet “Relationsanarki i 8 punkter,” which was published by Interacting Arts in 2006.

Some core tenants of relationship anarchy are listed and elaborated on below. (Note: There are more than those listed here, since for the purpose of this post I wanted to limit the list to core defining concepts. At the end of the post, I have provided a link to the Andie Nordgren’s full list and explanations, which you can read for more information. )

“Love is abundant, and every relationship is unique” - Love does not have to be limited to one couple. It is possible to love multiple people, and your love for one person does not diminish your love for another. People and relationships in your life should not be ranked or compared with one another; instead, each relationship and person should be cherished individually.

“Love and respect instead of entitlement” - Each relationship in your life should be based off a respect for your partner’s independence and autonomy. Rather than expecting your partner to conform to what you want or what is socially expected of them, you should respect their boundaries/personal beliefs and “let loved ones choose paths that keep their integrity intact, without letting this mean a crisis for the relationship.”

“Find your core set of relationship values” - Figure out how you want to be treated, what your boundaries are, how you want your relationships to work, what your expectations are in a relationship, and what sort of people you want in your life. “Find your core set of values and use it for all relationships. Don’t make special rules and exceptions as a way to show people you love them ‘for real.’” Although all relationships will look a bit different, you should have certain basic boundaries, expectations, etc. that you apply to all relationships (For example, if you have certain boundaries that you would not allow a close friend to cross, you should expect a romantic partner to respect those same boundaries).

“Build for the lovely unexpected” - Let yourself and your relationships be spontaneous. Rather than worrying about what you “should” do, focus on what you actually want to do. “Organize based on a wish to meet and explore each other - not on duties and demands and disappointment when they are not met.”

“Change through communication” - If you want to do something in your relationship that deviates from social norms, you should communicate about this explicitly and outright. Say what you think and feel and ask your partner(s) about stuff.

“Customize your commitments” - “Relationship anarchy is not about never committing to anything - it’s about designing your own commitments with the people around you, and freeing them from norms dictating that certain types of commitments are a requirement for love to be real, or that some commitments like raising children or moving in together have to be driven by certain kinds of feelings. Start from scratch and be explicit about what kind of commitments you want to make with other people!”

[sunshine-in-a-bottle]

Do you have any headcanons that are true for most/all of your fanworks even if it’s not always noticeable?

fuck. I have to remember my own writing now one second.

Dream is always a sex-positive ace. He isn't sexually attracted to other people but he likes sex and he likes people. Most of the time.

Sam always has a little crush on Dream as a kid because Dream was So Cool and Strong.

I feel like I rant about this way too much but. Dream has adhd, Sam has OCD/OCPD, and Punz has autism. They Are The Neurodivergent Triangle. This Is Always Correct.

Wilbur always has a crush/is way too attached to Michael McChill in any timeline they meet, and McChill simply has to live with this.

DreamXD is a Dream apologist. Every Time.

If Punz is a hybrid, they don't openly show it or draw attention to themselves. They're not keeping it a secret so much as they're really used to people being judgemental bastards in their line of work.

Lasercorn (Maricraft) was the original Blood God/person to have a covenant with the Blood God, and is one of the voices in Techno's chat. He is always the first person to call for violence.

Full-Memory Ranboo is always on Dream's side and is like. Thumbs up. Also when Tubbo finds out they get a divorce, there's no saving that trainwreck of a revelation.

In the minecraft universe, being poly is the norm, and monogamy is typically considered a lot less common. When you live in a world where you can hop server to server with ease, where you don't die of old age and breeding isn't Required for new players to spawn (sometimes servers just decide to spawn some little guys) there was never any pressure for monogamy. People still get married, and communication is still important, but no ones going to bat an eye to find out you're dating a lot of people or in a large relationship.

Puppycat Sam

[transmutationisms]

fucking love your takes!! you always hit the nail right on the head :)

if i can ask, whats your opinion on the roy siblings’ relationship to sex?? i feel like it’s interesting that their relationship to sex is such an integral part of each of their characters (romans entire thing, shivs issues with monogamy, connor and willa, etc) and im wondering why they set it up that way. out of them all, is there any u think has the healthiest relationship with sex? (im tempted to say kendall lol because his issues with sex seem more garden-variety ie. using sex to fill an emotional void for love and attention and power etc but idk. i feel like there’s more there)

the kids' sex issues accomplish a few different things. one is that, in general, the show leans heavily on the characters' fear of the body as an alien, uncontrollable site of potential humiliation. no matter how wealthy and powerful they are, they can't stop logan from aging and dying; they piss or shit or trip on the stairs; and they therefore have trouble relating to sex in an uncomplicated way. the sex issues telegraph an overall discomfort with their bodies and an alienation from themselves.

more specifically, the way each sibling relates to sex is a direct function of their assigned role in logan's system of gender and corporate hierarchy, and indicates the ways in which they struggle with those positions. roman has always been seen as weak, effeminate, and therefore disgusting; he doesn't identify with the dominant, normatively masculine role, and doesn't want to fuck anyone, in business or literally. his most fulfilling sexual encounters on the show have been gerri echoing the way his father talks to him, and roman getting off on the objectification. shiv instinctively identifies with the dominant role, and has some of the killer instinct for it, but has been excluded from it by her father's view of her as a kind of permanent adolescent girl, kept sexually pure and disembodied; she has difficulty transitioning to the role of wife or mother, as she sees getting fucked physically as equivalent to getting fucked metaphorically, and considers both humiliating and beneath her. her open marriage arrangement would in some ways be quite normative were she a cis man, but instead, it's seen as a violation of her gender role. connor was at one point the heir by default, but is now considered biologically extraneous; his politico-sexual ideology encourages the 'productive' use of sperm, namely through reproduction, yet connor is childless and only recently in a committed relationship. his relationship is transactional—like all relationships on the show—but it bothers him on some level, and multiple times he has tried to convert this into a more romantic language that he wants willa to speak. kendall has been placed in their heir role, which demands exercise of a specific form of masculinity that includes being the one who literally and physically fucks his partners / subordinates, but he speaks this language awkwardly and unsuccessfully in business, and although he can fuck and enjoy fucking, he views his own sex life through logan's eyes and sends away both naomi and jennifer when logan disapproves of them. he also relates to his body primarily as a tool meant to accomplish a task, rather than an object of desire: an obvious point of comparison is his confusion when naomi asks for a dick pic, in contrast to roman actively wanting to frame his own body as an object for consumption that he then sends to gerri.

broadly speaking, their difficulty adhering to logan's definitions of sexual normality are indicative of the violence inherent in those definitions. his disgust at roman's sexuality, disdain of connor's relationship, sense of ownership over roman's and kendall's sexual expressions, and persistent denial of shiv's body and sexuality are all part of the same system, and affect how the kids see themselves and their own sexualities. also, because sex and politics and business all operate within the same discursive field, it would sort of be impossible for any of them to have simple pleasurable experiences of sex as long as they're still trying to exist in waystar or indeed in the broader capitalist structure it encapsulates. for them, there simply is no differentiating their own sex lives from structures of interpersonal violence and economic exploitation.

i don't think the show is trying to argue that any of these is a 'healthier' relationship to sex than any of the others. in general i would challenge that framework (like, healthier for whom? healthier defined by whom? &c) and i also just think the siblings each have distinct shit going on, and it's not generally possible to 'rank' them on any kind of scale of severity; they're just different. additionally, i think all of the siblings' sexual behaviours are a mix of things that are benign on their own, and only appear pathological in relation to the demands logan makes of them, and then things that are more inherently painful for them, regardless of their father. & of course, sometimes those lines blur or shift.

[magpiethepunkfairy]

Attraction is so weird and confusing to me

I'm gonna rant about it and vent(?) About how confusing it is

Like, I don't really understand the difference between platonic and romantic attraction and when I tried to research it (which is the most aspec autistic sentence every) all of the examples and definitions and shit felt so very hetero normative and also like, very centered around monogamy and "normal" brain having people

"If you think about them all the time it's romantic "

I have adhd and I'm definitely capable of hyperfocusing on a person, and that also doesn't feel like a healthy thing to base attraction or a relationship on

"If you wanna be physically close/hold hands/kiss/ect it's romantic "

That just isn't true! And if it is I feel romantic attraction probably more then platonic

"If you wanna spend all your time with them or see a future with them"

Again, adhd, also, I have fuckin strange attachment issues. Also Again I can imagine a future with almost anyone, daydream is fun

I also just wanna live on a lot of land with all my friends and spend all my time with all of them, and I don't think that's a romantic attraction based feeling

It's frustrating honestly

But I feel like I can and have maybe felt romantic attraction, and maybe I'm just thinking about it to much or something so I don't even feel like I should identify as aspec

Idk feelings are weird and don't make any sense to me

[polyamzeal]

do u have any advice on how to deal with and work through internalised monogamy-standards and like related jealousy and selfesteem issues? i also take recs for literature or something if it's too much.

thanks, i appreciate ya <3

I did a small polyam book recommendation list recently.

Unlearning internalized behaviors and beliefs is always hard and never happens overnight. It takes time and even long after you will slip up from time to time. Have patience and be gentle with yourself.

I honestly don't know if it works for everyone so take with a lot of salt. But to me a lot of mono-normativity and jealousy stems from toxic competition. The inverse of this is constructive cooperation. For example if a partner shows an interest in someone else you might feel like that person will 'steal' away your partner but instead try thinking about how that person might be a fun person to work together with to plan a gift for your partner. Or even from a more parallel sense maybe that person would be interested in going with your partner to that event that you really didn't want to go anyways. Look for ways to realize that a potential "enemy" could actually be a helpful ally that you can get along with.

[lurkingshan]

I hate how Boston has been treated in the show and by some parts of fandom just cos he doesn’t conform to the norms of monogamy and likes casual sex. I also get the feeling the finale favoured the branded pairings so their couples ended up endgame even if it didn’t make sense.

Neo is not in a branded pairing so his character’s story arc got screwed over. Sighs… I agree with your other anon that Boston leaving the toxic friend group is a silver lining. That’s the only positive thing for Boston. I still hate how he’s been treated overall.

The finale definitely favored the branded pairs and sometimes in a way that didn't track with who they were or their stories up to last week. Ray basically got a personality transplant this ep (which can be hand-waved away by his relative sobriety) in order to portray him as suddenly perceptive and make him and Sand a stable couple all of a sudden; it felt very off to me. And did you notice how they said they were going to call their new business SandRay? Giving themselves a literal ship name! Kind of on the nose.

Mew and Top barely felt like themselves in some parts of this ep; I definitely had a few out of body moments where I felt like I was back in bossbabe watching Gun and Cher. Since when is Mew clingy and cuddly and cutesy? It was such a weird vibe all of a sudden. And that fire alarm scene was plainly only to reassure the audience that Top didn't lie about his trauma; that scene was there to respond to fan outcry about Top's character, it served no other narrative function. For me, the over the top happiness of their ending after weeks of being told they don't trust each other just felt false.

As for Boston and Nick. What really gets my goat about this ending for them is that we have spent weeks in a narrative about how Nick gets Boston in a way other people do not. He told him point blank that he doesn't have to change, he loves him for who he is. And this finale completely undercut that. I was actually on board for their conversation about the different way they see the meaning of being faens; for Boston that is all about emotion and quality time and has nothing to do with sex while for Nick it's all or nothing. That's valid as a final conflict for them. I could have even been happy with an ending where they mutually decided to part ways because of this impasse. But instead, we got Boston desperate and confused and Nick firmly rejecting him, leaving him alone on the concrete. That's fucking rancid as an ending for them after everything they've been through.

And even with that said, had the whole show stayed true to its original tone of mess and chaos and destruction, I could have rolled with that bad ending for Boston and Nick if the sentiments of it were echoed across the show. But they decidedly were not. The narrative singled them out for this shitty ending while the other couples got to bask in unearned happiness. I get madder the more I think about it.

[alpaca-clouds]

Media, Fanfics and Polyamory

Okay, I need to get something off my chest. I... am kinda annoyed with how media - and that includes fanfiction - often shows polyamory. Because most of the time it is depicted as "monogamy, but with more people".

It is kinda how a lot of queer representation in media is often "straight relationships with two people of the same gender" (as in, still kinda forcing people into the traditional roles within a relationship, with one partner taking off the "female" and one the "male" part - often with the characters then getting shown with more stereotypical female or male traits). I mean, for the longest time it was, what kept me from Slash stuff: That it so often casted one character as the "woman" of the relationship, before going ahead and just... do the same sexist tropes, you will usually see in straight romances.

But I digress.

The thing with polyamory is, that it often gets depicted as a closed relationship that involves most of the time three people. Rarely more than three, which is problematic for a reason I am getting at in just a moment. First of all...

Yeah, sure, there are absolutely closed polyamorous relationships. Meaning, relationships that have a fixed number of people, with a strong understanding that there is nobody getting into that relationship later on.

But... A lot of polyamorous relationships do not work that way. While not all go directly into relationship anarchism, there generally is an understanding that at least with some communication a partner would be allowed to date someone else as well. Because a lot of the polyamorous experience is about learning Compersion (feeling happy for someone to find love).

Which brings me also to the problem with OT3s. I have tried to explain this before, but it seems people are struggling with it. See, the problem with Triads is, that they rarely last, as long as they remain a triad. Does not mean that no triad ever lasts - but most don't. Why? Well, because there is one problem. If there is an argument in a triad-relationship (and yes, even polyamorous people argue) it will often end up as a 2 vs 1. And usually what happens is, that in the end it will end up as often the same two people against the same one person. Which will lead to the one person to feel isolated and end the relationship.

Which brings me to Relationship Anarchy. Relationship Anarchy is basically a relationship philosophy that is anti-normative. Which is against heteronormativity, allonormativity, mononormativity and so on. It is very much based around the ideas that:

Love is not a limited research. A single person can give a lot of love. (After all: Even a person in a monogamous relationship will still love their family and friends.)

All Love is equal. So basically there is no overidealisation of romantic love - which also means that queerplatonic relationships are seen as as serious of an involvement as alloromantic relationships.

I just want to ask everyone who is writing anything that involves polyamory - no matter if it is a book, a comic, a tv show or a fanfic - to understand this.

Also... please just stop overidealisation of alloromantic relationships period! Please! I am begging you!

[rotationalsymmetry]

I am being irritated by a thing that I probably shouldn't be irritated by again.

But I am. So here goes.

Watching porn is not cheating, period. I don't care who thinks it is. I will die on this hill. If someone thinks their partner cheated on them by watching media that is their problem and it will not help to socially reify that by going "sure, cheating is whatever you say it is! Even if you say it post hoc!"

In a polyamory context, a reasonable/relatively common definition of cheating is "breaking an agreement about sex/having relationships, and lying about it or otherwise concealing it" -- not a misunderstanding, not something your partner is upset about that they hadn't talked about beforehand, not you being a dumbass and forgetting something, although any of those can still be problems. Cheating is a very loaded word, people give it a lot of weight, it should be reserved for pretty serious breaches, not something that someone can do by mistake.

Anyways, I think one could reasonably apply this to monogamy? Not "cheating is what I say it is", but "if we previously agreed it was cheating, both of us, and you do it anyways without revisiting the conversation first, it's cheating."

Note how that's different from "the person who says they were cheated on is right, period, regardless of anything else."

And I don't think there automatically has to have been a conversation about how sleeping with other people is cheating for that to be cheating, social norms are useful because sometimes people don't explicitly talk about stuff, and also if we had to talk through every single social rule every time we connect with someone that would be exhausting. The stuff that's socially recognized as definitely cheating can still be definitely cheating without a conversation. The ambiguous zone should be given grace.

And if it comes to light relatively late in a relationship that one person considers socially gray zone stuff cheating and the other doesn't, I don't think the more permissive person automatically has to surrender their definition for the relationship to be viable going forwards. Why should it be? Why is it automatically more virtuous for the more permissive person to rein themselves in to meet the more restrictive person's standards, than the more restrictive person to become more open minded? Or a compromise position? Yeah if that can't happen break up is an option, but why should the only options be break up or both people adopt the more restrictive person's worldview? Do people not get to disagree about what cheating is once they get into a relationship?

The flip side to "well if your partner is being unreasonable controlling about their understanding of cheating" -- and people can use overly broad definitions of cheating as part of a campaign of abuse, btw -- "you can always break up" is "if you think your partner is mistreating you and they don't, you don't actually need their agreement to break up with them."

What you do need social agreement of cheating on -- because there are people who do blatant unmistakable cheating who will spin it as anything but -- is for getting sympathy from your social circle, not to hold your partner accountable, because of that thing I just mentioned and also because decent partners will want their partners to be happy without the big guns of "you cheated on me" needing to be pulled out. And I really don't think it's socially useful to go "oh, you think your partner cheated on you because they liked an ex's swimsuit photo on Instagram? Well of course you get to define cheating and of course that's equivalent to finding out that your partner's been fucking their ex the entire course of your relationship behind your back."

It's just not.

It does not benefit anyone, least of all the unhappy partner, to conflate these things. Sometimes when people are making mountains out of molehills -- and "my partner got drinks with someone attractive and I feel weird about that" is a molehill compared to full on cheating (although yeah this is complicated because sometimes the first sign of full on cheating is something relatively subtle) -- it's better for them to get a reminder of how big mountains actually are.

I really want to emphasize: lots of people will do some flirting or...whatever, idk, going to strip clubs, without that making them more likely to cross the line of actually fucking someone that isn't their partner. (Which is not always cheating. I'm polyamorous.) If they know the line is there, that's the important line for them.

You all know there's such thing as a no fault break up right? It doesn't have to be "cheating" to go "ok, this isn't working, I'm not happy, I'm out."

You all know there's such thing as a no fault difficult conversation within a relationship, right? It doesn't have to be "cheating" for someone to say "hey, that makes me uncomfortable, I'd rather you didn't, are you willing to not do that going forwards for the sake of my comfort?"

In fact, that sort of conversation usually goes much better for not starting with an accusation of what's socially recognized as one of the worst things one human being can do to another.

[stackslip]

Thank you so much for your BPD post. I've had people judge me irl for going from openly identifying as bisexual specifically to IDing as Lesbian (with a secret Bi- for Cool People)/Queer/It's Complicated. And while some of that is genuine shift in my identity, a lot is about seeking medical diagnosis rn and being scared of a BPD diagnosis and I can't explain that to people BC I'm worried they'll take that as manipulative, too. Seeing people talk about how it's genuinely dangerous and how bisexuality is such a factor in the diagnosis is really fucking validating.

i rarely see people talking about the biphobic aspect to how bpd gets diagnosed—one of the main diagnosis criteria is about "disordered/unhealthy sexual behaviors", which immediately pathologises bisexuality and any kind of non-normative sexual behaviour from non-monogamy to having kinks to just enjoying having sex with strangers (and again if you're bi this is included in the non-normative, disordered behaviour). i remember reading how bi/pan women tend to have higher bpd diagnosis rates than heterosexual women and even lesbians bc of the whole "oh you're bi you cant choose a side so i diagnose you with manipulative slut disorder" and i mean i experienced it myself, with a doctor trying to diagnose me despite not even fitting *any other criteria at the time* except that my anger at the abuse i saw in psych ward counted as a "manipulative ourburst" i guess and me being perceived as a bi woman sealed the deal lol. so i feel you entirely, as an nb dyke myself

as a whole id argue that bpd and most psychiatric diagnosises are only as useful as far as they provide you with a community who might share similar issues and in rare cases, being able to support each other. certainly i know friends who are antipsych but id with bpd in terms of being able to better understand specific symptoms of trauma and find tactics to handle said symptoms better, as well as support others with similar delibitating symptoms. but this is what a shared community does that can be good—the truth is, bod and most personality disorder diagnosis are not just fundamentally flawed but used to deny any kind of care or help to already traumatized and depressed people. ive heard cases of "misdiagnosis" of bpd, but id argue any official psychiatric diagnosis is a danger bc it puts a target on you and marks you indefinitely. you could fit the bpd criteria to a T and I'd still argue that a diagnosis is a danger and can actively impede your access to care, and be used as ammo against you by doctors, healthcare providers, family and even random acquaintances because frankly, no matter how nice an individual doctor is, most doctors treat a personality disorder diagnosis as a way to say "this person's shitty and hard to deal with and should be kept away from healthy society" and it's also how it's used by 90% of people (whether in healthcare or otherwise) who love to have a way to distance themselves from Irrevocably Broken People and put any instance of abuse or poor behaviour on them. there's a much wider argument to be had about the harm of psychiatry as a whole, but i have this particular issue at heart. i know so many traumatized and abused people whove been retraumatized and frankly destroyed by being marked with this kind of diagnosis, whose abuse has been justified by their peers bc they have the Broken Slut Disorder or the Has No Feelings Disorder or the Selfish Cunt Disorder. which are all apparently Real and Important medical tool that serve an important function and should never be criticized lol