#as well as i suppose the idea of sexuality itself as gendering...

[fozmeadows]

an aspect of trans discourse that’s really been itching me lately is the debate over referring to the sex you were assigned at birth - as distinct from your gender - as biologically male or female. specifically: the divide being drawn between (some) trans women, who reject the idea of being labelled biologically male, and (some) trans men, who do label themselves as biologically female. the argument I’ve seen made by trans women is that it’s irresponsible for trans men to label themselves biologically female, because this implies that trans women are likewise biologically male - and as being perceived male in any respect is a major source of the violence directed towards trans women, trans men who do this are putting their trans sisters at risk of harm. 

which, unfortunately: we live in a world where this is a thing that happens. that threat of danger is very real. but I also think, at least within the trans community, we should acknowledge that this threat, which would not exist in the world we’re trying to build and which is a product of transphobia, should not be the yardstick we forever use to determine self-reference; that transphobes shouldn’t get to choose how we conceive of ourselves. trans women in particular are being forced to play a strong ideological defense on the matter for the sake of their safety, but this is not the same thing as the terminology itself being, for any trans person who chooses to embrace it, wrong.

we also need to acknowledge that, while the hypervisibility of trans women within public debates about transness frequently puts a bigger targets on their backs than it does trans men, trans men are still vulnerable to threats, abuse and danger; and, when passing, of being viewed as outsiders to “women’s” issues who have forfeited the right to speak on their experiences. this, too, creates a pressure to align with biological femaleness, to avoid being lumped in with cis men when it comes to speaking about things like sexual abuse and harassment, gender-based discrimination, menstruation, pregnancy, breast/chestfeeding and childbirth. again: the external pressure of cis assumptions and prejudices around trans folks’ bodies and personal experiences should not be the primary determining factor in who is “right” to self-define a certain way; it’s simply an undeniable thumb on the scale.  

but precisely because of all this, I think we need to consider the extent to which this entire conversation is influenced by the idea that proximity to womanhood, to femaleness, is morally good and desirable, whereas proximity to masculinity, to maleness, is morally bad and undesirable: in other words, by terf shit. the idea that Gender Evils are stored in the penis, testosterone and/or the Y chromosome is why terfs believe that trans women are morally suspect predators and trans men gender traitors in the first place - and because the threat of real-world violence is real, a lot of us have rushed to try and counter this argument, not by refuting the claim that maleness is Bad at the biological level, but by professing ourselves inoculated against it: (some) trans women by refuting the nomenclature of biological sex, and (some) trans men by embracing it. 

under the circumstances, I’m not faulting anyone for how they self-describe or for being afraid of backlash from how others identify. but I dislike the way in which trans and queer solidarity is being, for lack of a better word, subverted by terf anxieties about the supposed inherent (as opposed to culturally and socially conditioned) evils of maleness and masculinity, as though there can be no solidarity between trans men and trans women, or cis gay men and cis lesbians, or between any group of men and women, queer or otherwise. conceding ground about the inherent “danger” posed by “male” biology poisons the well of solidarity. to believe that men are inherently, bodily predisposed to badness, rather than being taught entitlement and bad behavior by patriarchal norms, is to deny the possibility of an equitable world; to accept the conservative defense so often made of misogynistic criminals that “boys will be boys” and “all men are like that”. if you do not believe that men can be better than what patriarchy so often makes of them, then you cannot truly believe that the long term goals of feminism and queer liberation are achievable, which is the very same corner that terfs have argued themselves into in pursuit of denying trans women in particular their humanity. 

so! some things to think about!     

#trans issues #trans rights #sex vs gender

[justice-flonne]

Twitter and the death of Media Literacy

As the original post now has reblogs turned off before this post came out of the queue, looks like I have to make my own

Lemme tackle picture number 2 first. Number one, what the HELL do you mean "normal mentally ill [woman]"?? There's no such thing. There's not even such a thing as normal non-mentally ill. Everyone is different and has different reactions and symptoms. and number two: where the fuck do you get off calling the author a sex pest for the "crime" of exploring her options in brothels (well, i guess maybe it is a crime, i forget how japan's laws are, but still. i better not hear you demanding more rights for sex workers while indirectly demeaning their jobs, ya nitwit)? Being gay (or even just non-conforming, and that's not even just about gender) in Japan, while not as bad as say, the Middle East, is not exactly a walk in the park. She probably at the time of writing didn't have many options, and everybody explores their sexuality in different ways. It's really messed up that you're calling the author a sex pest for describing her life, especially since she did nothing wrong (as in, her encounters were all consensual. again, don't fully know the laws regarding brothels there. i think it's a "we'll pretend we didn't see that" scenario)

This also kinda ties into the downright dangerous idea that an lgbt+ person, lesbians especially, can only be an innocent pure being. that kind of thinking can and HAS gotten people into horrible abuse scenarios

As for the "incest"... whoo boy, this is gonna be long:

Now, I have actually read this manga, and I can cite the pages with the supposed "incest" mentioned in the first pic. I'd elaborate, but I'm admittedly quite bad at that, so I'll let the comic speak for itself:

(forgive me if there's any errors in the alt text. it's late 😭)

As you can see, the author does not LITERALLY want to fuck her mother. She has childhood issues from not enough affection (elaborated elsewhere in the book, but I'm tired. read it yourself. i got these pages from a definitely legal website, so can you), and wants to be held and coddled. She even straight up says what she feels is abnormal and yearns for a woman NOT RELATED TO HER to do things with. She KNOWS what she feels is strange and wants to (and eventually DOES) grow from this. I could post more images, but i'm probably pushing my luck as is

Point is, you "adults" really, REALLY need to learn that depiction is not the same as endorsement. Not everything is as cut and dry as the Marquis de Sade. This is, as the damn title says, the author's experience with loneliness as a result of growing up with an emotionally distant mother in a society that is markedly different than America

please, PLEASE, learn to think critically, and i mean "critical" in a "english class analysis" kind of way (for lack of a better term), not a "this thing you like is bad and it offends me" "critical." It's alright to be uncomfortable with things and even to not like things, hell I myself am a HUGE hater, but please, don't throw a tantrum because a real person wasn't a smol bean like you hoped

holy shit i need to go to bed

#my lesbian experience with loneliness #nagata kabi #media illiteracy #mental illness #abuse #we're all living in amerika #good grief #lgbt #twitter #this is at least partly due to the tumblr exodus so it's not fair to pin it all on twitter #but i'm gonna anyway

[inbarfink]

The fact that Brad and Janet sing their big romantic duet in a graveyard and a funeral serves three main points, in my opinion. Most directly, it quickly communicates to the audience that this is not just a straightforward love song in a straightforward musical.

By having them run around and sing while seemingly totally oblivious to their grim surrounding, doodle on the church’s doors and barge in on a stranger's funeral - it communicates to the audience that we’re not supposed to take this song totally seriously and we are supposed to find Brad and Janet at least kinda mockable and worthy of criticism in their ‘wholesomeness’.

Secondly, it foreshadows that Brad and Janet’s seemingly happy engagement is doomed to end by the end of this story. Especially as the size of the coffin implies this is a funeral for a child. Brad and Janet’s engagement is also going to ‘die’ very very young.

Thirdly, I think it indicates that the engagement itself is something foreboding and that the whole song is less happy than it appears on the surface. Like the backdrop of the song is betraying some of Brad and Janet’s true feelings.    Especially note how the song starts on the Ominous Thunder that hints on the storm to come.

I mean, I don’t think that it’s a brand-new-super-hot-take to point out that Brad and Janet were probably repressing a lot of their own desires to fit in with the conservative heteronormative culture they came from - and that what happened within the Frankenstein’s Place was less about them being corrupted by a totally outside force and more about them letting out already-existing repressed parts of themselves.

So, even if Brad and Janet truly love each other, I think that, deep down, the happy happy heteronormative monogamous wedded life this song celebrates is not the kind of love they would want to have together. That’s the importance of Janet beating the other girls to the brides’ bouquet. Due to the superstition that whoever catches the bouquet will be the next to marry, that kinda puts pressure on Brad to propose to ‘fulfil’ that belief. Would he have proposed to Janet that day if the bouquet didn’t make him feel obliged to do so?

And I think at least some of Janet’s eagerness to marry is probably more about, well, Janet lived all her life in a very sexually repressed culture, but she is also secretly very very horny. Becoming a married woman was the only way she was allowed to have sex without being labeled as some sort of, well, Slut.  I think that she was eager to finally be able to have sex while still being a Good Christian GirlTM.

This aspect of marriage is also referenced in the Ralph and Betty Wedding.

And note how the implication here is that the wedding is what Betty wanted and the sex is just something Ralph gets from her in return. Janet’s environment was such that even in the one condition in which she was allowed to have sex, the idea of her own sexual desires was underplayed - she was just there to fulfill Brad's. Even though, deep down, Janet is clearly the Hornier of the two.

But in Brad and Janet’s life, marriage - and all the specific gender roles and sexual expectations that came with it, was seen as inevitability, maybe on the same level that death is an actual inevitability. Brad and Janet could try and make a happy production out of it, but the backdrop betrays their true feelings about it.

#brad majors #janet weiss #rocky horror picture show #rocky horror show #rocky horror #rhps

[qqueenofhades]

Hey, wanted to say I love how you’ve written about slavery in your fic! Also, sorry if this is out of left field, but as you’re a historian wanted to ask how much do you know about slavery of other ethnic groups across europe. It’s a subject I’ve been passionate about but have no on really to talk to. I’m from romania, and the racism there against romani people is very widespread, and whenever I try to call to people’s attention that they shouldn’t be, idk, racist, it never gets taken seriously. A part of me feels like the fact that slavery in the region isn’t thought about in schools from an ethnic standpoint is also to blame. Roma (and tatars but to a lesser extent) were not the only slaves, with romanians being in that group as well, and slavery didn’t start with them, but a lot were enslaved because of their background. Even the fact that it’s not clear if romani people came to wallachia and moldova on their own or were brought there through slave trade is unclear is never mentioned, which makes my bloood boil. Sorry for the random ask, but again, it’s something that I can’t discuss seriously with anybody else, and wanted to see your opinion on it.

Welp, okay. This is the kind of ask that I want to think about and carefully source before I answer, because there is obviously so much possibility for inadvertent or deliberate misinterpretation, bad-faith reading, and all the other tedious idiot gymnastics that both Tumblr and the internet at large like to engage in. So here goes.

First off, unfortunately, slavery is one of the oldest institutions in the world, and has a long record of practice in ancient and medieval history, as well as its best-known manifestation in the transatlantic African slave trade from roughly 1619-1807, as well as its continued practice in the British Empire until 1833 and in America until 1865. (1619 is when the first shipload of slaves arrived in the American colonies, the transatlantic slave trade was outlawed in Britain in 1807, the practice of slavery in the British Empire was phased out starting in 1833, and while Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, it didn't have any kind of actual effect until after the end of the Civil War in 1865). That does not even include the profound damage done by both slavery itself and its after-effects, which are obviously prominent and persistent down to this very minute, and infect social attitudes, financial circumstances, generational inequality, and all the other poisonous and permanent consequences of systemic racism. So sometimes when people try to insist that White People Were Slaves Too!, it puts my hackles up. I absolutely 100% know that's not what you mean here, and you're very rightly pointing to how complicated the idea of "whiteness," race, and inequality is in a European context, as well as an American one. But in other cases, the "white people were slaves too!" argument is used as a straw man and deliberate deflection to argue that African-Americans don't have some kind of unique experience with slavery, or that their present circumstances and disadvantages aren't impacted by their past. Which, of course, is racist bullshit and straight-up deflectionary reactionism and doesn't make any sense, but still. That is their MO.

To turn, then, to the subject of slavery in Europe, among people who would now be identified or assigned as white, and in the premodern, pre-Triangle Trade period. For all the admiring press they've gotten in recent years as a supposedly "free" or more gender-egalitarian society, the medieval Scandinavians/Vikings were prolific slave traders (possibly a reason why the dudebros love them as a supposed model of White European Masculinity) and it was a fundamental part of their economy and their world. Concubinage (aka domestic/sexual slavery) and slavery were also closely connected in the Viking world, and the slave trade peaked in the British Isles (including Ireland) between the ninth and eleventh centuries. The people who were trafficked in this trade were usually Slavs (i.e. eastern and southern peoples from the frontiers of the continent of Europe), which is, after all, literally where the word comes from (Slav --> slave). There was a possible but unclear racial element to this belief that Slavs were the best slaves, and probably based more on religion (paganism vs. Christianity) than any explicit notions of racial superiority or inferiority. They were, at least in appearance, white people sold to other white people, and the idea of them being a "different race," while it existed, again wasn't really clear or defined.

In the context of medieval Bohemia (modern Czech Republic, Slovakia, and parts of Germany), it's hard to tell how exactly "free" and "unfree" laborers were distinguished, and how much slave markets drove the local economy, which is often the case elsewhere as well. In England there were even supposedly "free" and "unfree" knights until at least the Norman Conquest, recognizing the fact that knighthood alone wasn't the prestigious social standing it later became with the development of chivalry (and raises the question of whether there were essentially "slave knights.") The whole was-serfhood-essentially-slavery debate has likewise been raging for years: serfs didn't have legal "personhood" or recognition in the court system, weren't able to leave their land without their lords' permission, weren't financially compensated for their work, etc., but most historians agree that this isn't exactly slavery as we would now define it. It was certainly unpaid bondage of a sort, but there were still systems, rules, and expectations that governed the serf's life, some amount of implicit personhood even if not in the eyes of the law, and goods and services they were entitled to receive in return for their work. None of this existed in slavery.

The slave system in medieval and early modern Iberia (Spain and Portugal) was the essential basis for what was exported to Spanish colonies in the New World, in Mexico, the Caribbean, and Latin America. So by the time both transatlantic voyages and colonial economies had expanded to such a scale that the widespread capture, transportation, and exploitation of Black Africans into bondage was practical, it was already building on a system that had existed for centuries, rather than innovating from scratch. This, I think, represents the key distinction: first, that of size, as the transatlantic trade was far larger in scale, scope, and duration than any of the localized and essentially informal slave markets of the Viking/medieval world. They did generally do it as a practice, but transatlantic trading made it a main pillar of the early modern world and the economies of the colonizing Western European countries, on a central and integral level. Next, this was when slavery began to become explicitly racialized, and a suite of theories were developed as to why black people were both inherently inferior to white people and therefore actually "benefiting" from slavery and were the natural candidates for it. I have written before about how while Irish and Scottish people were indentured laborers in the New World, their status did not equate to slavery, and they were still recognized as essentially human (if of a lesser standard than the "supreme" Englishman). They were also increasingly phased out as the Black African slave trade became the preferred option both economically and racially.

In the specific context of the Romani: as you say, it's true that at this time and through much of the late medieval/early modern period, they were automatically enslaved, and this status persisted beyond that of other comparable groups, affecting perceptions of and racism to them down to the present day. Shannon Woodcock summarizes:

Romani individuals in Romania exist in historical sources as the property of boiers (landowners), state administrators and the clergy, where they are called “Ţigani.” The first archival evidence of Roma in the Romanian principality of Wallachia is the record of 40 sălaşe (families) given to Voivod Dan I in 1385 from Vladislav I, a Serbian landowner. Until 1699 (when Transylvania came under the administration of the Hapsburg empire), all Roma who entered the Romanian principalities of Transylvania, Wallachia or Moldova were captured and made slaves of the state; and after 1699 this practice continued in Wallachia and Moldova and was modified somewhat in Transylvania. The state could retain slaves for their own use, or sell them to boiers or monasteries. Slaves were called sclavi, robi, or Ţigani. Other ethnic groups were also slaves, such as a small percentage of Tartars, but these groups were freed by the end of the 15th century, and only Roma remained slaves. The term Ţigan came to conflate the legal and social position of slaves with ethnic Roma. To be a slave was to be considered an ethnic Ţigan. There was no such thing as a free Ţigan, or a free Rom. Romanians did not recognize or interpellate Roma as anything other than Ţigani, sclavi and robi.

Because Romani people still suffer the effects of this system, and are subject to modern-day prejudice resulting from this generational inequality and discrimination, yes, it's fair to say that they experience the aftereffects of slavery similar to African-Americans. Your average white man claiming that his distant ancestors were enslaved (such as they very well might have been in the Viking markets) does not suffer in any way from this. Nobody is going to treat him differently (aside from maybe avoid him at parties because he's a blustering racist). That ancestral experience does not affect him now, and his racial status is not conflicted or perceived as inferior in any way. Nobody is still going to treat him as Lesser because he's Irish-American (no matter what he thinks or likes to say), and he and his ancestors have never been subject to an all-consuming world order and economic system that prescribed their automatic inferiority and their essential dehumanization for centuries, and which is still largely unchallenged today, despite some superficial disruptions and reforms. Just because white people have been subject to slavery in history does not make their experience equivalent to the entire world order of white supremacy that has been systematically implanted into global power systems, and still exists to this day. A black person, however, is still automatically subject to that legacy and its discrimination whether they like it or not, and they have no choice of opting out.

As such, because Romani are not "white" in the European hierarchy of race and racial relations, even if they might be considered as such by superficial American analyses, they suffer that same sort of inherited generational discrimination just by nature of who they are as a class. This is the case especially with Eastern Europeans in general, who have long been seen as not being quite as "good" or "pure" as Western Europeans, reflects those old religious fault lines (they were pagan or Orthodox Christian or Muslim or etc., while the Westerners were Latin Catholics), and makes European racism a far more complicated matter than who simply "looks" white to outward eyes. The Romani cannot "opt out" of their background and the inherent prejudice that comes with it, in the same way that African-Americans can't "opt out" of theirs (while as noted, it makes absolutely no difference at all to your average white person what their ancestors were and whether or not they were enslaved, because they benefit from the operation of white supremacy as a power structure and overall system of perception). As such, a black or Romani person has no choice but to be black or Romani, and they can't have the luxury of deciding whether or not they're going to care about what those labels signify to the rest of the world. It just happens to them anyway.

In sum: thanks for the ask, and hopefully this was helpful as a discussion for you. It was certainly interesting for me. :)

#anonymous #ask #history #medieval history #history of slavery #history of racism #cw slavery #cw white supremacy #long post

[phoenix-is-the-hottest-thing]

In the omegaverse AU, what do you think Seele and Vita would be in that universe?

In my opinion, Vita would be a dominant Alpha and Seele would be a gentle Omega.

I've actually discussed this with friends and I've seen both ways around work!

The way you mention is the classic way, it works by leaning into stereotypes. In canon, Vita is a confidant tease and Seele is a gentle girl, so they fit into alpha and omega stereotypes perfectly.

However, omegaverse is by nature a good playground for deconstruction of gender stereotypes (repurposed for kink), so you can absolutely flip it on its head and make it work anyway. Vita as a manipulative Omega who exploits her secondary gender to make people underestimate and take care of her, maybe even divert their attention away from her scheming? I could absolutely see that. Meanwhile Seele is great as an Alpha who struggles to act as one, much in line with her self-confidence issues in canon, and Veliona's personality being more Herrscher-typical translates well to being more Alpha-typical in the omegaverse.

Personally? I don't have a preference, I can work with both. I do have more ideas for the stereotypical way, but that's because I'm exploiting Sa's controlling behavior for angst hahaha.

Suppose you were raised by someone like that as a human, a traumatized and horribly controlling parent can rub off on you in all kind of negative, soul-destroying ways that make you doubt yourself and wonder whether you're also a monster. This aligns great with Alpha!Vita who might struggle with how to be a good person once that she's free of Sa's influence.

Meanwhile, Omega!Seele might act like the "perfect little Omega" but that comes with the downfalls of the stereotype, notably when it comes to agency and self-worth/self-respect. Living in a society that encourages her to stay sweet and not develop the stubbornness and competence she does in canon to break out of her shell would be a challenge in itself.

Either way, it's a field day to indulge in one of my favorites, character exploration via their relationship to their gender and sexuality! Teehee.

#honkai impact #hi3 #vitaseele #lemons #asks #vita #seele vollerei #there's an AU out there in a google doc where elysia is an alpha with gender issues

[zemothethirteenth]

KH 7 8 9 10 12

Kinky Headcanon Prompts

There's a few questions here so I'm gonna put these under a cut for the sake of timeline niceness. However, all questions have been answered under the cut! Thank you!

I'm gonna preface this the way I'll preface any headcanon-related questions: this headcanon is specifically about the Zemo I RP here, which may be different from how I write him in fic or other things, and naturally may differ dramatically from how others interpret him.

With that said!

KH7 - How does your muse feel about voyeurism and exhibitionism? Do they like to watch? To be watched? Do they enjoy recording their own sexual encounters to enjoy again later, or sharing recordings with others? How do they feel about this in conjunction with kinks like cuckolding?

Zemo is much more of an exhibitionist than a voyeur, though he certainly isn't opposed to a good show. Frankly, if someone caught him masturbating, or had been invited to watch him do such it would get him pretty quickly worked up; it's something he rather enjoys. Where voyeurism is concerned, the notion of being able to sit back and watch someone, or direct a scene between other people is incredibly tempting to him, and he would enjoy that immensely - however, with something like cuckolding... well, we'll address that below.

As for recording - not a chance. No way in hell. He knows enough about tech and espionage to know that nothing good comes from these kinds of recordings. The idea is delightful, but he's too practical to make such a sloppy mistake.

KH8 - How does your muse feel about Consensual Non-Consent (CNC)? Are they comfortable acting as the aggressor or as the victim? How do they feel about the inclusion of drugs or other intoxicants in a discussed scene? Are they comfortable with scenes that may involve the safe and planned loss of consciousness of one party?

Zemo is open to most things as long as discussion and consent have been achieved. There are certainly some things he won't ask about, but when it gets into things like this it'll generally be with at the very least a loose conversation.

He's less likely to be concerned about the discussion itself if he's supposed to be the 'victim' in any given scene, though he may discuss the boundaries of fighting back ("will I have a weapon? Am I limited in the types of weapons I may use? Will you have a weapon where I can't see?"), and if it's with someone he trusts he won't much care about drugs or loss of consciousness. With alcohol he cares much less about whether he trusts someone or not.

As the aggressor in a scene, however, he's considerably more communicative; it's important to him that if it happens, it happens in a way that will satisfy his partner in some way. Zemo, at all points, prefers an enthusiastically consenting partner. He feels good when he feels needed. This is no less the case in CNC - if he's the aggressor, it's to fulfill a partner's need and that means knowing precisely what the needs are in order to meet them.

As a learned thing? CNC that may involve magic as an 'intoxicant' or 'mind altering substance' is a hard limit for him. Frankly, magic in use at all makes him incredibly wary at best and outright hostile at worst.

KH9 - How does your muse feel about the use of particular titles during play? Are they okay with a title being used that doesn't align with their gender identity? Are they okay with derogatory titles? Do they prefer any particular titles?

For the most part, Zemo doesn't have any particular titular preferences towards anything unless a scene calls for it. He's secure in his gender identity and has no particular issues with titles that don't align with his gender identity - so long as his body isn't being feminized, the titles don't mean much to him. He has strong preferences against being called Mommy or Daddy as it brings up trauma he hasn't fully dealt with regarding his wife and son, though the term 'sugar daddy' in general doesn't particularly bother him.

Derogative titles are much more situational - he doesn't require praise, but it'll really depend on how much trust he has in his partner and how secure he feels with them. If he already feels insecure, certain titles could lead to him spiraling.

KH10 - How does your muse feel about collaring in general? Do they have specific rules that require obeying with the use of collars? How do they distinguish between a collar of consideration, a training collar, and a formal collar? How do their personal aesthetics factor into the choice of a collar?

Zemo doesn't mind collars and collaring, though he's much more likely to collar someone for a scene than to give someone any kind of long-term collar. This is partially because of the way he prefers to explore kink. A collar - particularly a formal collar - is a bit too close to a wedding ring for his liking and he has some hang-ups in that regard.

Where a scene collar in concerned, however, Zemo will outline a set of rules before placing the collar on with the understanding that once the collar is on, any disobeying of those rules will result in punishment. Things he's likely to include in those rules are based on what the intended scene is - pet play may involve remaining on hands and knees, staying off of furniture, and speech being limited to yes or no answers when directly spoken to. Safe words are always allowed, regardless of voice limits, though the use of a non-verbal safety indicator rather than a verbal one is likely to highly impress him.

Scene collars he keeps neat and simple, and he might use interchangeably with a collar of consideration if he was interested. A training collar would be something much more likely to be of a poster-collar nature - he will be at his most rigid during training, and the collar is liable to reflect that. A formal collar is much more likely to reflect his partner's aesthetics than his own.

As for being collared - he'd prefer bruises around his neck or a collar for a scene over any long-term collaring. Anything long-term would take a lot of work to get his cooperation on and he would be a little bitch about making sure it functioned with his personal aesthetic.

KH12 - How does your muse feel about swinging, polyamory, or other partner-sharing situations? Are there specific rules and stipulations that they put in place? Do they approach partner-sharing differently in live-in situations than they would living separately?

He's (mostly) fine with sharing someone so long as they're not in a relationship. If something isn't 'his' he recognizes that he has no claim over them, so there's no point in feeling possessive.

In a strictly D/s relationship, as someone who tends towards being a Dom, he may share under the strict stipulation that it is only with partners of his specific choosing. A submissive may veto an individual, and naturally this would all be with discussion and dependent on the boundaries established for their dynamic. He would have no particular interest in being shared, however.

In a romantic relationship, however, Zemo will absolutely not share. He can get possessive, paranoid, and downright cruel to all parties involved in any instance where sharing may take place, even if he initially said he was fine with it. He is not fine with it. He may agree to be a cuckold, but there will be a weeks long depressive fallout that will come of it. It's something he likes in theory more than in practice.

#{ Zemo Headcanon } #{ meme reply }

[drbased]

I've had in my head for years an idea for a 'series' called 'The Misogyny in Things I Love' where I was going to go through, well, the misogyny in things I love. I had in mind:

the simpsons: in wanting to subvert the traditional wholesome family sitcom they accidentally told an entire generation of women 'wanting a kind, gentle man who will provide for you is a foolish pipe dream, in reality you're expected to be slim and desireable and the men around you will be mean, gross slobs but you'll still be attracted to them for some reason and this is biting social commentary on the state of things and - whoops now the popularity of this show has changed the entire cultural landscape and you'll be buying your husband homer simpson socks as a ''''joke'''' and all the sitcoms will have a hot wife and gross fat dad and it's not even satire, it's just funny that men are like that and nobody really cares enough to try to make things better for women'

always sunny: I've talked about this a bit actually, about how each of the men represent a different facet of misogyny. one thing I didn't mention is how as always sunny has tried to keep up with the zeitguiest, it's been harder and harder for them to make the characters realistically bad people and also funny and relatable because the political landscape is so fragmented and hostile. but misogyny still gets a free pass so the guys get grosser and grosser to dee as time goes on but they're also not realistically transphobic because that would go too far. also the liberal use of bitch, I've seen the fanbase be like 'I love how in always sunny 'bitch' is a gender neutral term' 🤮 also what's fascinating is that as the show started, dee was originally going to be the generic 'girl' character and it was entirely kaitlin olson's vision that made the show into what it is today. I genuinely think without her the show would have been truly generic and unforgettable, like it would just be a bunch of guys being horrible to each other and onto a kind woman - that would have been so uncomfortable to watch. oh also they were planning on paying her a pittance and she demanded more money so yeah

peep show: peep show is such a fascinating deep dive into the incel/chad dynamic that tears apart both roles before they ever got truly entrenched in culture. the portrayal of misogyny in the show is fascinating and criticising it is hard because someone will inevitably say 'well they're not supposed to be good people' but the show repeatedly frames the men as fools and cowards and victims of circumstance, the women are framed as sexually aggressive towards them/using them - but when you actually look at their thoughts and actions, the men are grossly misogynistic. it's not treated as aspirational misogyny, but the framing leans more towards their problem not being misogyny itself but rather that 1. Jez needs to listen less to his impulses and grow up and 2. Mark needs to gain some courage. Mark even literally says in one episode in his head that he would basically threaten Sophie sexually but then says it's 'not his style'. Are we supposed to laugh at the absurdity that the only reason he's not a rapist is because he doesn't have the courage? How many men watching would even pick up that that's what's funny? Was that even the writer's intention? That's the problem with analysing peep show - it's supposed to be dark, it's supposed to be uncomfortable, and the question of exactly what the joke is can sometimes be ambiguous. taking a 'death of the author' approach to something like peep show is really fucking hard because you'll inevitably get people saying 'you're reading too much into it' or 'you're not reading into it enough' depending on what their own personal interpretation is. I guess that's why I haven't written about it

futurama: god, fry and leela. fucking hell, fry and leela. fry is a fucking monster, in one episode (the snoo-snoo/rape joke episode - it's funny because it's women raping men, and the men love it!) has fry and zapp brannigan making so many misogynistic jokes. fry is dumb, lazy and gross, clearly a groening staple. he harasses leela throughout the series, even in one episode going full incel 'why won't you go out with me?' and leela has to make up excuses. and it's treated as cute, it's treated as a love story for the ages. god, I fucking hate how the show treats leela. and amy is one step away from being a childish airheaded asian girl, it's really uncomfortable how much she's low-key sexualised. fortunately in the later series they actually have her complete her studies so she's not a generic bimbo character anymore. but then in the same era we have the most 90s bullshit 'men are from mars, women are from venus' style episode that shows how awful men are but.... idk, women gossip and complain a lot, so I guess that's the same thing. I love futurama so much but it has such gross sexual politics

red dwarf: red dwarf is responsible for the first 'gender swap' episode I've ever seen and I love it with all my heart. it does not shy away from the social commentary. what I always liked about red dwarf was that despite it being all men trapped together, it wasn't laddish at all and avoided all the classic misogynistic tropes, with some early episodes, such as the gender swap episode, being incredibly progressive, even for now. and then as a time went on it got worse and worse. when they brought kochanski back, she was 1. nothing like the quietly witty and shrewd women from the original series and 2. the generic space babe in a red latex jumpsuit, who also moaned about everything like a ridiculous female stereotpe. the last season before the rebooted series, where all the crew came back, became some sort of weird generic sitcom - and there was that horrible episode where they filmed women in the bathroom and there's one of those stupid moments where the guys are like 'this is horrible and wrong but I'm going to partake in it anyway because tee hee I'm a dumb stupid male I can't help it' I despise male-written comedy that does this, guys you're just fucking telling on yourselves

frasier: the whole Niles and daphne thing is also basically another case of 'man acts really creepy but it's unrequited love so it's really cute'. I will say though when they do get together I actually love how the show handles it, the episode where daphne and niles have a proper argument to demonstrate he doesn't idolise her anymore made a real impression on me growing up and I think it genuinely influenced my approach to relationships and valuing honesty. the show's depiction of roz is... interesting, because she's clearly a 'slut' but she's given more personality than just that. I don't like that she was given a child and that was supposed to be some sort of sign that she had grown as a person. and there's the series of episodes where there was a female boss and, of course, frasier ends up fucking her, even doing so accidentally 'on air'. it isn't treated as a purely humiliating moment for her, but still it's kinda gross in hindsight. the show really wants to have its cake and eat it too, it uses classic misogynistic tropes for comedy purposes but then takes the high road and allows the female characters to be more than one note. oh and then there's the episode where we find out that frasier's piano teacher basically statutory raped him but it's treated as one of those 'she taught him how to be a Man and he should thank her' kinda deals

gavin and stacey: I'm running out of steam but when nessa gets pregnant gwen says 'this could be the making of you' which I think is probably the most insulting line in all of television history. Nessa's whole character, the main joke about her, is how despite her age she has had such a ridiclously eventful life and has ties to all sorts of famous people. she's clearly a highly competent, dynamic, interesting woman, who only still lives in the small town of barry because of her national pride and love for stacey. the idea that pregnancy is the thing that will be the 'making of her'.... it's so insanely misogynistic that I think it fucking tops everything else on this list. what a hell of an insult, dear god

I probably will go through these properly eventually, I will at least talk about peep show and the simpsons because those two have the most social commentary and therefore say a lot about both the culture and the opinios

#my writing #I found out from this post that there's a 'characters per block' limit on posts lmao

[trabandovidas]

@nargles-everywere Ok so, I’m not going to pretend that i’m an expert on slurs or that i know all the surrounding theories that are out there, only just what i (remember from what i) learned in class. Pretend we just met in la rambla and i'm just rambling about my classes, and take this as just that in terms of reliance of this info

Now, to be honest, the idea of Gringo being a slur is not really that complicated or forced -it is pretty straight forward, actually. While giving a definitive definition of slur is impossible without choosing to adhere to one theory, i think we can all agree that a slur is, more or less, (and very vaguely), an expression used in a derogatory manner towards a determined group of people or towards an individual for belonging (or it supposed belonging) to a determined group.

For example, keeping out most of their theory related characteristic, Eleonora Orlando and Andres Saab (both from the Buenos Aires university), in their "Terminos peyorativos de grupo, esteriotipos y actos de habla" paper, define slurs as “expressions that are prima facie associated with the speaker's conveyance of a derogatory feeling for a certain group of people identified in terms of their origin or descent ("spic"), race ("nigger"), sexual orientation ("faggot"), ethnicity or religion ("kike"), political ideology ("snowflake"), habits or ways of living ("whore"), etc.”  

Geoff Nunberg, in “The Social Life of Slurs”, agrees in that a derogative word only qualifies as a slur if “it disparages people on the basis of properties such as race, religion, ethnic or geographical origin, gender, sexual orientation or sometimes political ideology—the deep fatalities that have historically been the focus of discrimination or social antagonisms that we see as rents in the fabric of civil society”.

While we might not like it, just right away does "gringo" seems to counts as a slur (or "termino peyorativo de grupo" or "insulto de grupo", in Spanish, if you prefer it that way): it is, after all, an expression that is associated with a derogatory feeling for a group identified in terms of origin or descent. One could argue that there is no clear definition for “gringo” (that is, we could argue that brazilians’ definition of gringo is different from mexicans’ or uruguayans’, etc, and therefore we could argue for days about who counts as a gringo and who doesn’t), however, this works no matter what definition you take. It doesn’t matter if the group of gringo is just “usamericans”, “no-brazilians” or “no-latines”, it still targets a group of people based on their origins or descent. 

But, if it is so straight forward, why does everyone feel so averse to using the term "slur" to describe the word? Well, Nunberg says that “slur” is a culturally saturated keyword -a word that is "strong, difficult, and persuasive". It’s a word more specific and more value-laden than words like “insult” or “derogative”, and it’s what is known as a hybrid word or a thick therm, which is basically a word that mixes categorization and attitude, the same way “bigot” does: the word on itself talks about the reproachable nature of the act.

We see slurs as a distinct kind of social transgression, a verbalized thought-crime: it’s not just a breach of manners, it perpetuates social inequities. Nowadays, slurring has become a speech act in which institutions and the law may take an official interest (it definitely has, before, in other countries such as the USA), and so, when we say a word is a slur, we assign a moral or political undertone, both to the offense it gives, and to the offense one commits when using the expression. Basically, we have such a strong response to labelling “gringo” as a slur because we would be saying that the act of referring to them with such a word is reproachable, horrible, or undignified, that the label is unfair and undeserved. And since we feel the group have it coming, that they deserve it, we demur from calling it a slur.

This is not a phenomenon unique to “gringo”, it also happens with “cracker”, or “facho”. We don’t like to call them slurs, because the groups it intends to refer to are the ones that form part of -or makes on itself- the oppression. Basically, they are the “bad guys” so we think calling them an “ugly term” is not that bad. 

But, that wouldn't -and shouldn't- stop them from them being slurs

[4tlas-hyper]

SORRY I BUMPED THE BUTTON AS I WAS GOING TO SAY

TO KEEP THE TRAIN GOING: what are your ones on pk or the white lady?

I love talking about HK for long periods of time, so how about I do both?

The Pale King:

Sexuality Headcanon: Pan, anybody can get it. There isn't a seperate section for it but he's polyamorous as well.

Gender Headcanon: Demiboy, same as Grimm, only he has even less of a grasp on what being male is supposed to mean.

OTP: Pale Nightmare of course, which actually started out as a notp funnily enough, but then I accidentally read a fic for it and ended up falling in love with this ship. They have a fun and intetesting dynamic with each other, and it can make sense in the canon story(explaining why it does will probably need an entire post all on it's own because I have a lot to say). Secondary ships include Wyrmroot and Palewatcher.

BroTP: Monomon, the two of them are sleep deprived science dorks and will fuel each other's dumb ideas. He has a similar thing with Hegemol only to a lesser degree.

NOTP: Aside from the obvious ones, the Radiance. Enemies to lovers shit can work, but it's difficult to pull off even with characters who have a potentially interesting dynamic with each other, these two don't have that going for them. When one of the Radiance's main motivations is her hatred and thirst for revenge focused primarily at PK, I can't see her changing her ways and I especially can't see her falling for him. The closest I can see these two is very begrudging allies and even that might be a stretch.

Random Headcanon: He can play the Piano really fucking well, or at least he used to be able to, he slowly lost his skill as the void ate away at his hands.

General Opinion: Every insult I could possibly throw at him, but with "(affectionate)" right after it. He is a dumbass, he did a lot of horrible shit, but I can appreciate his sorry ass more than I like to admit.

Song: I physically cannot pick just one song for him, because my taste in music is just his whole aesthetic. I'll get the main ones out of the way first, "Touch Tone Telephone" by Lemon Demon, "Little Dark Age" by MGMT are both songs that I feel are generally associated with him anyway(I know TTT is, not as sure about LDA). And for a couple others I have "Choice" by Jack Stauber and "Toes" by Glass Animals.

The White Lady:

Sexuality Headcanon: She's a Bisexual that leans towards Lesbian, and like her husband, she is also polyamorous.

Gender Headcanon: I want to say Demigirl, but I feel like that's mostly my own confusion regarding gender projecting itself(agender here), so instead I'm going to say Androgynous(aka the midpoint between male and female). Pronouns and presentation do not equal gender, she comes across as very feminine but I feel like nature gods should be representitive of all nature has to offer, including through their gender.

OTP: Wyrmroot is canon and absolutely adorable. I love that the two of them are so devoted to each other yet that doesn't bind them to monogamy, they allow and even encourage each other to find potential partners outside of their marriage. WL/Dryya is also kinda cute but I don't feel super passionately anout it as some others do. I also kinda want to mention WL/Unn as a potential pair, I haven't seen much if any content for them and I feel like it coukd make sense.

BroTP: Grimm as I've said before, and oddly enough I imagine she'd be good friends with Herrah. I have read fanfic interactions between the two and that's probably where that's coming from, I don't really know how to explain why I think they'd get along, they just would.

NOTP: Barring the obvious once again, I'm going to have to say Grimm. I don't know, the two would be good friends, but it wouldn't go any further than that I feel, not just because I headcanon Grimm to be gay. Both of them pair extremely well with PK, just not with each other in my opinion.

Random Headcanon: This only applies to my Gijinka AU because hair obviously isn't a factor in canon, but she loves to braid PKs hair(which he keeps long to accommodate, and because he thinks long hair makes him look more regal), delicately weaving flowers into it and everything. It doubles as a sneaky way to get him to take care of himself better because he'd make a genuine effort to keep his hair as healthy as he can so she can easily work with it.

General Opinion: Big wife, plant mom, very pretty woman, I love her.

Song: Almost everything by Amarante gives me the whimsical nature-loving vibes that I associate with her, but "Mountains" and "The Other Side" if I had to limit myself.

#hollow knight #the pale king #the white lady #hollow knight hc #ask game #thanks for the ask!

[phoenixiancrystallist]

Day 123 (boy I hope I'm not repeating numbers or accidentally skipping days or anything), and thanks to @lithiel I designed my own personal Keyblade!

I've been trying to get down a design idea for it for years, but something just clicked while we were talking about Keyblades for art related reasons today, and I finally finally finally hit on a design that works! Details below the cut; much like my username there's a lot more going into it than first meets the eye :D

There were a handful of main things that I wanted to incorporate, because to they represent large aspects of how I see myself:

My Eastern Zodiac, year of the dragon

My Western Zodiac, Pisces the twin fish

Shiva and her ice

Phoenix and her fire

My birthstone, amethyst

My sexuality, ace

My gender identity, genderfae/genderfluid

Gold accents bc I love gold (and when I do the final rendering there may or may not be some kintsugi elements for, uh, personal reasons >.>)

Most of this Keyblade is supposed to be translucent: the water, the crystalline elements, and the fire to be specific. For the fire end of it, I took inspiration from Lea's Bond of Flame Flame Liberator (I know Keyblade names, I promise!). For the water, I wanted the translucency of the water elements in Destiny's Embrace, with ace-flag-colored koi leaping out of the waves. The general shape of it is vaguely reminiscent of Diamond Dust—and I mean vaguely—which as those of you who've played any given Final Fantasy game know is Shiva's signature move. Shiva holds a special place in my heart because of Heartfelt Adventure, that RP I was in that helped shape who I am today. The transition from water/ice to fire is not only super pretty, imo, but it also represents when I changed my summon in the RP from Shiva to Phoenix, which in and of itself was representative of how I've grown and changed as a person over the years.

The hilt was almost inspired by Oathkeeper, only as fairy wings (for genderfae), except that I hadn't added anything for my dragon zodiac at that point, so I decided to do a Loong-inspired dragon to wrap around the guard. I chose a Loong rather than a European dragon not just for aesthetics, but also because I felt it was more appropriate for an Eastern dragon to represent my Eastern Zodiac. I did incorporate a more European styled head for the dragon, because a) that's what I'm more comfortable drawing, b) I drew the head before I decided on the body even though I should know better, and c) I decided to keep it that way because I am of European descent, and my interpretation of the Zodiac is through a Western lens rather than an Eastern one, so by combining the two designs I feel like I'm honoring the origins of the Zodiac as well as my own origins.

The genderfae keychain was an afterthought; originally I was going to make the water-to-fire transition in genderfluid colors, and you can still see some of that in there, but they wound up getting covered by the water and fire. When I realized I'd accidentally covered the segment I was going to use to reflect my gender, I decided I liked that a lot better and... well, I just slapped the keychain on there XD I was going for fairy wings, but I think they look more like flower petals, so I might adjust the design to a flower later. Now, do I go with my favorite flower (rose), my birth flower (options of violet, primrose, or iris), or whatever this is supposed to be? Guess we'll find out~ XD

#the great artscapade of 2022 #bobbi's being weird again #art #my art #kingdom hearts fanart #keyblade design #Lithiel tried to make me choose what Keyblade I wanted for myself #I went through eight in ten seconds and then whined that choosing is hard XD #and then like half an hour after that my brain caught up with the rest of me and went ''we're an artist we can just make our own'' #IN MY DEFENSE I was at work and doing worky work work XD

[felgueirosa]

@librarycards posted their book recs for the summer (past ~3 mos) and tagged me to do the same!

honestly, i hadn't really read much stuff for myself, besides nonfiction vaqueiro books, and hadn't read much fiction in a while, until i started getting closer with my now gf who is into scifi writing and the publishing industry and we started recommending each other our favorite books and reading books together. so this would be the actual first months i do have real recommendations!

i generally hate writing reviews and am bad at them except for some reviews of nonfiction books about vaqueiros bc i am extremely knowledgeable in that area and therefore have strong opinions about them. so i'm just linking to their pages and i'll give a short description i suppose.

Imperial Radch (entire series, first book is Ancillary Justice, there are 3 books, and 2 companion books) by Ann Leckie

The AI of a spaceship is inhabiting a human body, searching the galaxy on her quest to take down the empire she was once a part of as an act of revenge. An all time favorite series.

2. The Murderbot Diaries (entire series, first book is All Systems Red, there are currently 6 books total, 5 (?) are novellas, 1 is a novel, a second novel is coming out in a few months) by Martha Wells

A bot-human construct Security Unit hacks its own governor module so it no longer has to follow orders from its company, but spends years continuing its role and pretending to be under corporate control until it is rented out on a planetary survey by people from outside the corporation controlled planets who are, for the first time in its life, sympathetic to it and interested in helping it. And it has to decide what it really wants for itself, how it defines itself, and who it is. Also it really loves soap operas. I'm on the 5th book rn but definitely an all time favorite series as well, and is also one of my gf's favorites. This one really hit home, being a survivor of psychiatric abuse, I relate to Murderbot immensely. It puts an entirely different reading to the series. I can't stop reading it.

3. The Traitor Baru Cormorant by Seth Dickinson

This one is also a series, there are currently 3 books but it is unfinished but I don't know when others will be coming out. This is also one of my gf's favorites. I'm going to confess I haven't finished this one yet and put it on hold bc it's quite bleak and a lot of bad stuff started happening in my life and I was like. Um maybe I need to read something a little less depressing for the time being. But I am absolutely coming back to it. A challenging read, in topic and also just generally. I've had lots of feelings about it as a lesbian but especially as a Vaqueira. When Baru's home is colonized by the Empire of Masks, a mysterious man from the Empire becomes her patron, putting her through the new Empire-run school where she learns imperial ideas of gender, sexuality, and race. After excelling in math and finance, she is sent to become the Empire's accountant for the colony of Aurdwynn where she is expected to crush rebellion of the locals.

4. La Navidad de los lobos by Fran Gayo

This one is in Spanish. And I also haven't finished it. In fact, I have barely started it, but I feel compelled to include it. It is a work of Vaqueiro fiction, written by a Vaqueiru. One of the first works of modern Vaqueiro fiction that I am aware of. A diaspora Vaqueiru man living in Buenos Aires returns to Territoriu Vaqueiru after his grandmother dies. That's pretty much all I'm aware of for the plot right now, but it takes place in the near future and has some magical realism. Takes place in a fictional braña. Also there are a few cool illustrations! I'm not very far in bc I'm trying to read it at work and you know how that goes!

So that's my reads for the summer! Mostly entire series, I'm a series person so I don't have a ton of images to post but I did kind of end up including some reviews, except for for Imperial Radch, I don't love it any less, it's one of my faves, I just read it first so it is furthest from my memory. I am 100% Murderbot brain rn tbh. Honestly if you like scifi like the scifi seasons of f@tt or Becky Chambers novels, I highly recommend Imperial Radch and Murderbot!

For this I tag @angelofdudes @hamath @discworldwitches (i know you were already tagged in the other post srry) @leguindyke @gracelandmp3 @bisexualmoses if yall want to, i know its a big ask!

#book recs #tag game #ask game #lol cant remember

[llycaons]

monster baru: notes as of ~halfway through

Dickinson's exploration of topics related to culture, sexuality and colonization is pretty neat to see in a fantasy series. I liked the discussion around cultural relativism, sexual fluidity, and Stakhi gender roles. a white man he may be, but careful and well-researched

I did think it was weird when baru extended sympathy to svir for the discrimination he faced as someone the reader would recognize as white, but ig it does follow the prejudices of the setting to their logical conclusion, and it makes sense that a series so involved in breaking down bioessentialism and misogyny would also challenge assumptions around white supremacy and the idea that white is the default

I kind of dislike that baru has non-sight senses/esp (?) on her blind side. I can't imagine this actually exists, but I suppose DIckinson would know

ulye xe is a GREAT character. her mannerisms and perspective are so cool to get into, and her sense of humor is subtle in a way that rules. also reminds me of lwj, actually, in that sense

I really liked the depressing bath sex scene. it was perfectly appropriate and it made a strong point about baru. also the sex scene itself was really good! hasn't been as graphic as other I've read, but I think the vagueness really works in the scene's favor

the switching POVs is still kind of confusing, but at least they're not doing it in the middle of the chapter anymore. and xy's voice is so strong, and her backstory is insane, I love it. her passion! her outlook! her commitment to the common people! I didn't realize how much she hated the ducal system. but who is XY addressing? 'my friends??'

also antiroyalist XY killing the Duke fucks. WILL THAT BE ALL YOUR GRACE

I picked up on a sense of 'tear down the ducal system' in traitor but it was never explicitly laid out. it certainly doesn't factor in baru's plans

anyway xy's 'side' is so much more complicated than just 'empire or rebel', she's a tactician who sides with the masquerade strategically in order to protect the most powerless of her people.

tain ko is so fucking cool. all the tains are honestly they rule

TAIN SHIR!!! HOLY SHIT!!!! I want her. and to see how she started...oh my god

TS and TK's backstory... 'I am not mastered'. I have chills. star wars WISHES

I love seeing more of oriati society, and the class critique thereof was super compelling.

it's nice that orientalism was so thoroughly avoided (especially compared to the dany chapters I'm forcing myself through 🤮stop talking about ~strange spices~ dany you have lived there for YEARS just eat the fucking locusts) but imo the world seems kind of small (Taranoke, Aurdwynn, Stazhi, Falcrest, Oriati, with some other peoples to the far east and west) - I would love to see more places and peoples. they all feel like vibrant, living, dynamic places that could actually exist

baru's relentless self-reflection is endlessly fascinating. she never stops questioning, either herself or others

unfortunately I still dislike the try tryhard chapter titles. DIckinson got so excited about all the new elements he wanted o incorporate and is trying to do so much at once. it feels overburdened and needlessly complex. like, tighten it up!

many many beautiful women. it continues to astonish and delight me that so many characters just continue to be women

very confused by this passage

I'm going to ask a mutual but the matricide line jut has me so baffled. how are lachta and the tain family related? why would lachta need to kill HIS mother?

it's really neat to see how Falcrest took over a different country. the weapons adapted to the situation of the place they conquer

Stakhi sounds really cool too! I want to go there!. the concept of 'a necessary king' is so neat. they're a people who don't like to be ruled, by anyone

finally I wish they hadn't used to word weed. it sounds silly and modern and informal when stuck into the language of the narration. just say cannabis

baru's crush on lao seemed like it came out of the blue and I was slightly weirded out that they were cousins, but then she clarified second cousins and honestly I met my second cousin this weekend at a family reunion and I think he's kind of hot so I can't even judge

the interrogation island is REALLY neat

I think the oriati concept of trim, and the critique of the princes, is one of the most fascinating and realistic aspect of the worldbuilding. look forward to reading more

#baru lb

[rametarin]

Just pondering genetic modification, and the pricks that obsess over it.

Blahblahblahblah

There are people that think holding the position, “this thing is normal because it’s how biology is supposed to work”, is tantamount to religious traditionalism.

So where do they get their ideas about what a thing is supposed to be, ideally?

Why, socially constructed idealism, of course.

So a person might say, “A human being, without disease or harmful mutation, possesses two functioning working eyes, teeth, ears, and all ten fingers and toes.” And the social constructionist would call them a bio-essentialist, saying their standards are arbitrary..

.. While aggressively denying that biology and reproductive selection or speciation are any kind of determining factors, to be discredited, solely because through technology, one can change that or make those characteristics irrelevant.

Like being able to surgically alter the form or genetically alter the characteristics of a being or individual means THEY get to decide what is normal or ideal for an organism, and that nature and the hereditary nature of a thing are just coincidental and circumstantial.

These kinds of people would unironically say a person that declared, “We could use genetic engineering to cure cleft lips and brain disorders,” as eugenicists trying to, “genocide and euthanize the Disabled.” As if the disabled were an ethnic group with a target on their back. Like curing someone’s blindness or deafness or inability to walk was somehow tantamount to forced schooling of Native American children in the US and Canada to naturalize them.

The idea that biology itself and heredity are orthodoxies arbitrarily held up as legitimate standards, and professing the only legitimate standards are the ones we arbitrarily construct out of philosophy, divorced from the limitations of biology and any kind of definition of what a human being is based on it.

It’s low key disgusting, and in its own way, just as homophobic and transphobic as any fundamentalist mainstream religious viewpoint, and I’ll tell you why:

Sexuality is predicated on an individual’s orientation. Orientation is, by nature, a way we discriminate biologically with what our bodies tell us is good to fuck, and what isn’t. A heterosexual person is oriented towards the opposite sex. A homosexual person, the same, and bisexual covers anyone in that spectrum even capable of wanting and desiring and following through with sex with both.

But what happens when people that do not believe in sexuality rooted in biological processes decides to weigh in and philosophically declare sexuality is based on gender, and that gender is arbitrary and has no REAL meaning?

Well.. you get someone going, “JUST SUCK IT, BABY. YOU’LL LEARN TO LIKE IT JUST SUUCK IIIIIIT.” Only they aren’t doing it to impose, “cisheteronormativity” or, “Judeo-Christian patriarchal standards.” They’re doing it because they have the position that sexuality is no more ingrained or static than your taste in carpet, sports teams or favorite brands of cereal. They do not acknowledge nor entertain the idea a sexuality is unchangable, because they’ve simply gone around you and taken it upon themselves to declare sexuality itself is fluid, no one is actually ever “really straight” or “really gay,” because people can change their genders and it means nothing.

And that same person will unironically tell you there’s something wrong when the religious fundamentalists dictate what sexuality is, means, and what is right, and not when they do it, because, “we came to our conclusion using secular reasoning and fact.”

Which isn’t true. Soft science and philosophy, arbitrary post-modernism that holds nothing as true and insists on no meaning exists but the one we decide and give to it, does not get to declare itself fact and truth just because it’s not rooting its arbitrary determinations in the absence of a deity. “It’s true because I deem it so and I have the authority to impose it”, is not a valid reason.

So therefore I submit to you, the post-modernist transhumanist view of what is legitimate and human is just as flippant, arbitrary and authoritarian as religious fundamentalism, their fundament just Courtney Loves it in colleges and pretends because they photo bomb with STEM scientists that they’re rooted in reason and intellectual logic and fact, while the religious fundamentalist is speaking hooey. Right before they start “correcting” the forensic scientist about how to gender skeletons or what pronouns to use to define how a given animal’s life cycle works.

If biological reality does not factor into how you determine the self-evidence of the nature of a thing, then you aren’t doing science. And this is something that is endlessly infuriating to argue with some people, because reality and material substance does not always lend itself to civil rights ideals. It is not religious or authoritarian orthodoxy to maintain that the standards of what counts as human depend on the precedent of humanity in its biological state before invasive technological use.

For example, a human being cannot fly. Yes, we can use a plane. Yes, we can construct gliders. Yes, we can ride rockets. But when you ask, “can a human fly?” The answer has to be no. We can’t. We can use tools and machines to fly. And as such, it would be incorrect or dishonest to say, “SOME humans can fly” just because some poor Island of Dr. Moreau project produced a transgenic designer baby nightmare with wings and muscle tissue strong enough to fly. That would not count in the category of unaltered human being; that would count as suprahuman. Transhuman. Posthuman. The existence of an engineered biological state allowing a human being to beat wings and fly would not suddenly prove, “humans can fly.” Because that does not cover humanity at large.

If someone said, “Humans can also have more or less than 5 fingers and toes,” that would also be a true statement. And why, if the ideal and average is five, would these mutations count? Because these mutations and populations that have excess or absent digits occur naturally in the wild. But they occur because of incomplete mutations. Find me the island where everybody has functional six fingers. You’re more likely to find an isolated population where just four functioning digits exist, because it’s easier to have a population where a detrimental mutation deletes a thing and the progenitor survives to reproduce, than otherwise. That still makes it a harmful mutation, not proof this is something that should occur.

To discount the imperative of the biological in determining what is supposed to be the norm, is to discount objective, imperative, impartial reality, from reality, and substitute purely what you want it to be. That is an absolutely horrible way to reason anything. And yet I’ve heard some people rumbling about how things have to shape this way, or else, “transgenic people will face stigma and ostracism and have their humanity lessened.”

Well yes if you modify your own genome permanently so you and all your offspring would, say, glow in the dark or be able to breathe underwater with designer organs, glands and tissues, that would kind of fuck up your entire hereditary line, bro. Yes, it would therefore be prudent to cordon off your contribution to the gene pool or at least designate yourself out as altered in some way. Not declare you’re human, therefore humanity now glows neon green in the dark and can make not just vitamin D from sunlight, but photosynthesize food, as well. Some acknowledgement that you’re human-plus isn’t a frickin’ scarlet letter, it’s just acknowledging what a human is, is an animal. A recursive pattern reproducing itself in this natural world. Even if we acknowledge humans can radically alter their individual makeup, those added characteristics should not be consider the equals of evolutionary traits.

[booksandwords]

Strong Wine by A.J. Demas

Series: Sword Dance, #3 Read time: 2 Days Rating: 5/5

The quote:  “Divine Terza. Yes, of course. And I’m supposed to be the tactician.” “Yes, dear,” said Varazda, patting his shoulder, “but I’m the spy.” — Damiskos and Varazda

Strong Wine is such a perfect ending to the Sword Dance trilogy. Works on the idea of connection. Though there is a persistent storyline between Sword Dance, Saffaron Alley and Strong Wine, I think they could theoretically be read independently. There is so much more to be enjoyed from reading all of them in sequence. It is worth that knowing, epilogue excluded the Sword Dance series takes place over about six months. It's quite a short time frame. I do really recommend it for a series that plays with gender, sexuality and presentation.  Varazda and Damiskos have this wonderful and endearing relationship with boundaries and limits that are respected and diverse family dynamics. I do think it is the only series I have ever read that treats eunuchs with such respect. Respecting humanity, identity and potential for sexual nature.

Onto Strong Wine itself. It could be argued that Sword Dance is Damiskos's story, Saffaron Alley Varazda's, following this line of thought Strong Wine is their story. Unlike the previous two which are single perspectives, this is alternating. As you would expect is a book that starts with a happy and fairly stable couple shenanigans ensue to disrupt them. Some of this is partly their fault. But there is a sweetness to the lack of communication while we are in both Varazda and Damiskos's heads we know they want the same things a life. They both want to live together with Yazata, Ariston, Remi (and maybe Kallisto) in Boukos and both mention a child. But these two are not good with the words. What they are clear on is that family is important. We do get to see growth in the relationship some reflection on where they started. I kinda want to go back and reread Sword Dance just so I can relive their relationship.

On the story. It does well to tie up the plot lines from the previous books and leave readers happy. There is racism in play as the story moves from the more progressive Boukos to the less tolerant Pheme. This racism is of course directed at Varazda and it is handled well, both by him and the author. The racism fits contextually and isn't extreme. It also lets us see a reminder of exactly how ballsy Varazda can be, like confronting Dami's family in full Zash attire. The plot is paced just right and uses the characters to their best advantage. There is very black and white though some people are definitely leaning more one way than the other. Ino is a gem. I liked her instantly as is intended. The lovely lady is a pawn in a game she has no control over, as I'm guessing most women would be in this fictional world. She is written in such a way that it is clear to the reader that there is no threat there and you want her happiness. You want her to have what is hers and to chase her dreams. Better Varazda likes her too. The other great character is Timiskos, Dami's younger half-brother. I just adore him. He's trying and he's sweet and he's been through a bit for his family. I kinda hope that A.J. writes a spin-off with Timiskos as a protagonist.

Have a comment dump.

“You see how happy he is now? You see how the strain is gone from his eyes, how much more easily and genuinely he smiles? I did that.” — (Varazda) There is so much love and pride at this moment and it's beautiful.

Kallisto and her cameo made me smile. She is strong but there are some times when she is shy. And I'm happy about that.

There is something that both Varazda and Dami consider a hamfisted declaration of love or a statement of intention but I really think it's romantic especially for them. Where cohabitation is not done easily.

“I’m not engaged,” he said, because he wasn’t about to begin spinning a web of lies. “But I am not free to marry.” — (Damiskos) This is a polite way to hide the relationship while saying no. But it's still effective.

He snickered at the idea of a dream messenger from Dami. It would have been kitted out in a crisp uniform, and would probably have marched. — (Varazda) And at this moment I was laughing because I could see it.

“No! Five days. And yes.” “What?” Kallisto pushed him toward a seat at the table. “No, he hasn’t had a letter from Damiskos. It’s been five days since Damiskos left. And yes, Varazda has written him. You and Yazata really need to stop pestering him. Damiskos is his lover.” — (Varazda and Kallisto) I appreciate the love that Asterion and Yatza have for Dami. The ability to acknowledge how happy he makes Varazda.

Varazda’s second letter was short and written in Zashian. It was a passage from the Tales of Suna, carefully copied out: the song of the moon fairy pining for her absent lover. — (Damiskos) This is so romantic. Varazda is a romantic.

Varazda didn’t even glare, in any way worthy of the name—not like Damiskos knew he was capable of glaring—but his look was enough to make Korinna shrink back in her chair. It was deeply satisfying. — (Damiskos) This is such a gift to give a character.

“You’ve taught me so much about love. I don’t think I would have understood, before you, that saying ‘yes’ to my parents over this—sacrificing my happiness for something that wouldn’t really be good for any of us—might be dutiful, but it wouldn’t be loving. You taught me about happiness, too. You make me actually believe in it.” — (Damiskos) Okay so Dami is also a romantic. Just in a different way to his lover.

And Zashians never really understood about suicide, that for Pseuchaians it wasn’t always a choice of sordid desperation, but could be a dignified exit, the last way to do the honourable thing. — (Damiskos) Oh I love this cultural difference. This is quite a common thing, suicide as an honourable act but it can be hard to understand if you aren't raised in that kind of culture.

The only thing I'm kinda sad about in Strong Wine is we don't see anything of Varazda and Damiskos performing, especially Varazda. The series is named for his skill with a blade and ability to dance. But it really is a bit nitpicky.

#strong wine #sword dance #a.j. demas #book review #ktreviews #read 2021 #queer #i adore the enby varazda #booklr

[probablylisteningtohamilton]

The evolution of my pronouns/gender/sexuality

(I’m starting when I learned what the LGBTQ+ was so around 4th grade?)

She/Her - Female - Hetero

She/They - Demigirl - Bisexual

They/She - Demigirl - Pansexual

They/Them - GenderFluid - Omni

Any pronouns - GenderFluid- Pan

They/He - Transmasc - Bi

He/They - Transmasc - Asexual Neptunic

She/He/They - Pangender - Demisexual Omni

They/It/He/She - Pangender/Questioning - Demisexual

He/They/It - Transmasc - Demisexual MLM(?)

He/It - Transmasc - Abroromantic Ace-fluid

Any non-fem pronouns - Transmasc - Ace-spec Aro-spec abro(?)

Mirror Pronouns - Transmasc (?????) - Demisexual Omni(??)

CONTENT WARNING FOR THE REST OF THIS POST: OPEN DISCUSSION OF GENDER IDENTITY, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, AND SEXUAL ACTS. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!!

I am now onto the reason for this post:

I’m having a crisisssss

Whoop de fucking do

Basically- I thought I preferred non-feminine pronouns??? Bc I would cringe when someone deadnamed me and called me a she, right???

But this kid at school called me my preferred name, referred to me as a she, and I didn’t even notice till she turned and asked if I used she/her pronouns—

AND THEN SOMEONE ELSE CAME UP AND REFERRED TO ME AS A HE AND SHE ASKED AGAIN BC SHE FELT BAD AND THE WORDS “Oh, I use all pronouns!” JUST ROLLED OUT OF MY MOUTH WITH NO THOUGHT BEHIND THEM???

And I was thinking about it and it’s like “well I mean he/him pronouns are cool but like idrc either way??”

WHICH SENT ME INTO A DIFFERENT HEADSPACE OF

“Does that mean I’m not transmasc bc I don’t really feel like a boy either??”

AND LIKE

I DONT EVEN KNOW

WHAT MY SEXUALITY IS AT THIS POINT

THE IDEA OF DATING ANYONE WHO IDENTIFIES AS FEMALE LEAVES ME FEELING SO UNCOMFY

I HAVE A NONBINARY PARTNER AND THEY MENTIONED AND I COULD CALL THEM MY GF AND I GOT THAT “I JUST GOT PUNCHED IN THE GUT” FEELING.

Ok but real talk:

The idea of being called a female makes me dysphoric

The idea of having tits for the rest of my life and not getting top surgery makes me dysphoric

The idea of bottom surgery makes me dysphoric

Being called a male makes me dysphoric

But also the term nonbinary makes me feel uncomfortable?

Like am I just broken do I have a problem-

And on the sexuality aspect of things?

-I find men attractive physically and romantically

-I find nonbinary/genderqueer people attractive physically and romantically

-I find women attractive physically but I would never want to date one

But also I really don’t give a fuck about your assigned gender nor do I really care how you present yourself (men in skirts? Sign me the fuck up/hj), but the idea of dating someone who identifies as a female makes me so oddly uncomfortable?

And the idea of sex also makes me uncomfy in certain ways?

Like theoretical sex (smut, hentai, fanfics) are cool I suppose, but actual sex? God no. Please keep it at least 20 feet away from me at all times.

But also if I had partners who wanted to fuck each other while I was present? Go for it I guess?? Just don’t expect me to join, yknow?

The act itself doesn’t make me uncomfortable, the idea of being part of the act does.

Either way.

My best bet for my gender is either pangender, bigender, or genderfluid? (Open to more suggestions!!)

As for my sexuality?

I think I’ve established the point for myself that I’m asexual to a point, but the fictional retelling of it isn’t a problem? So greysexual? Recipro-asexual?

But the hard part is my romantic orientation-

Uranic is up there pretty close to the top of my possibilities list, but I feel I could still be abro possibly since femininity isn’t the thing I’m not attracted to, more whether or not the person is a female or not.

Im also not referring to whether or not someone has a pussy before you ask, more like “even if you have a dick, if you identify as a female, I want no part of that”

Anyways there’s my crisis, if you’ve read this far, go get a drink of water, you deserve it^^

#gender stuff #mmm crisis time #haha #I’m fine what do you mean #we love to see it #i’m gonna shut up now

[mysteriorockanova]

just had some thoughts on the situation between disney and the florida government after reading half of this dumb article about it (cw: it’s pretty transphobic, and tries to excuse away the desantis administration’s blatant bigotry). i’ll be the first to admit, i don’t know everything about the situation, but i just had a couple things i wanted to say about it.

like i said, i don’t know everything about this, but it seems like florida republicans are basically pissed off that disney stopped giving them donations? which is why i think it’s so weird that the article tries to frame this as “disney should stay out of politics >:-(”. like, is that supposed to mean that they’re meddling in politics by NOT giving money to the party? and they have to stay out of politics by giving them money again? idgi..

i don’t think disney are great heroes fighting for lgbt rights, or w/e. they’ve done a lot over the years to promote so-called “traditional family values”, including the mentioned campaign donations to republicans (who didn’t just suddenly become transphobic and homophobic out of nowhere). and it’s true that corporate meddling in politics should be opposed, but the “right populist” framing that the problem is “woke corporations” completely fails to address the real problem. tbh, i think it’s probably a good idea to tax disney more and put restrictions on how much land they can develop or own or w/e. i also think their property should be expropriated and redistributed, for that matter. but i have to say, it’s weird as hell to say the reason we should do that is because disney “went woke” and isn’t homophobic enough any more.

this is kind of the typical thing with so-called “populists”, where they might occasionally say something halfway anti-corporate or pro-worker, but for completely irrational and bigoted reasons. i want to emphasize, you really DON’T have to hand it to desantis here. if this is simply a case where he’s punishing disney for woke crimes, then that’s already dumb as hell (no need to elaborate). if he thought it would be a good idea to tax disney so his government would have more revenue to function, but knew that his base would think that’s communism so he threw in the bigoted culture war stuff to make it go down easier, then that’s also bad, because that’s spreading the message that the problem isn’t capitalism but “woke capital”.

when people on the left bring up race, or gender, or sexuality, they’re often told that if they really wanted to help working people then they shouldn’t be distracted by “the culture war” or “identity politics”, but a lot of people who claim that they’re above the culture war are really just reactionary (or at least they seem that way to me. sorry!). there are a million valid reasons to be critical of disney, but if somebody says the main problem with them is that they’re “too woke”, i’d have to say THEY are the one being distracted from the real issues.

it always bugs me when tucker carlson or jd vance or whoever say something about “woke corporations” and people are like “well, they’re partly right..” partly right? maybe.. but still mostly wrong. basically, i think talking about “woke capital” is kind of like “crony capitalism”, in that they can both be used to acknowledge actual problems in capitalist society, but then say that the problem isn’t capitalism itself, but only these particular bad actors in the system. this obfuscates the actual problems and impedes the development of class consciousness, so i think the “woke capital” framing should be rejected. wokeness isn’t the problem at all.

sorry if this was kind of rambly and repetitive or if i haven’t explained myself well, but i doubt anybody even read this anyway, lol