Do you ever become mutuals with someone you share an intense interest with and it becomes this limbo of "I want to be your friend SO fucking bad but I'll eat a shoe before dm-ing first"
69K notes
·
View notes
I've always been curious to know this about the people around me. Most people have been in severe pain, but in my experience few have had what they would say is their 10/10 experience. I guess it's just something I find fascinating, as I had my 10/10 experience quite young and I sometimes forget that not everyone has. In my opinion it changes your relationship with pain and how you engage with it afterwards. If you answered yes, feel free to elaborate on your circumstances in the tags!
(reblog for a bigger sample size etc)
5K notes
·
View notes
Being aromantic is like knowing most of your friends will one day move to Paris, but you don't want to live in Paris. And if you ever get sad about how much you're going to miss them when they go, people just try and tell you that you too can find a place in Paris! As if the problem is not having a house yet or being unable to sort out your transport, rather than not wanting to live there at all.
2K notes
·
View notes
shoutout to the aces who didn't always know or wonder what everyone's deal over sex was. shoutout to the aces who were horny teenagers who couldn't differentiate between their libido and sexual attraction. shoutout to the aces who only realized they were ace much later, perhaps after sexual experiences they regretted and couldn't understand why something they were so curious about felt so wrong. shoutout to the aces who made peace with these experiences and are now open to try again. shoutout to those who didn't and/or aren't. we're all valid as hell
2K notes
·
View notes
hot take but I think the "we're only talking about people who identify as queer when we talk about the queer community" thing was and is one of the worst arguments in defense of the word.
I am talking about you when I say "the queer community", and "queer people", and "queer studies". I'm describing a thing that a large group of people have in common, and you share that thing in common. Your individual comfort with the word doesn't change the definition of it.
I'm sorry you don't like that word. You don't ever have to call yourself that, and you don't have to like it, and I won't ever call you that if you don't want me to.
What I am going to do, however, is decide what language I use based on A) how inclusive it is, and B) how well it communicates my point to the relevant audience.
"Inclusive" here is an important criteria; this refers to the number of people who should be included, that are included, ideally without some kind of weird hierarchy (like we see in "LGBT+" and variations). The technical definition is what we're talking about here- putting personal comfort aside, could the word "queer" describe you?
There will always be someone who doesn't like a particular word for themselves- even if it could apply. Lots of people don't like "LGBT+" (I don't really), even if it technically applies to them. You're not more important than they are.
You can identify one way on a personal level, and still understand that when we're discussing the larger community of people and the histories attached to it, you're included in that- even if you don't personally identify with the specific word we're using. Your story, your voice, and your presence matters.
Y'all need to learn to distinguish "broad term for an experience I share with others" from "personal identity label I use to describe my individual experience to others". ASAP.
3K notes
·
View notes
I think i just need to express that the culture surrounding QPRs right now made me think that i couldn't have strong bonds with my friends. Society told me i cant have strong bonds with friends because that was only for romantic relationships. Then i went into aro spaces and this idea was reinforced using QPRs instead of romantic relationships. it was "You can still have strong bonds with people without romance! It can just be a QPR instead!" "QPRs are MORE than friendship so you can have STRONGER BONDS than you would with friends."
it made me think that the relationships i wanted with my friends HAD to be something other than friendship for it to be as strong as i wanted. If i wanted to be the first person in someones life i had to enter some sort of committed relationship. if I wanted someone to care about me as strongly as i did them then it would have to be a relationship that was "more" than friendship.
I thought I wanted a QPR because i was told the only way to get that care and security that I wanted was to enter into a relationship that was "more" than friendship. because friends didn't care that much. because friends didn't live together their entire lives. because friends were never the priority relationship wise. and it took me years to realize that i didn't want any partnership and i shouldn't have to be in one to want these things from a friend. these things CAN be something friends can do. but i found that out on my own. because the aro community kept saying "you want a QPR" when i just wanted a friend who finally saw me as a priority in their life.
1K notes
·
View notes
Hey writeblr I have a question!
So I often see posts in the same vein as this one here:
Things along the lines of "oh my characters are always changing the story, they're the ones that are really in charge."
1K notes
·
View notes
the sandra lynn / fig conversation is driving me Insane. fig saying that sometimes she doesn’t wanna exist as herself at all…not wanting to ask her friends how they see her (because she’s afraid to hear their response) saying that to someone she is a monster and she Cannot stop thinking about it. sandra lynn starting the conversation saying she needs to step up but is also simultaneously taken aback about what fig expresses and doesn’t know how to responds to it and suggests getting ice cream. sandra lynn saying “convincing people they deserve good things is really tough” talking about herself but how it also reflects fig. insane!!
395 notes
·
View notes