Ngl, Viktor vaguely reminds me of Husk from Hazbin hotel. Both grumpy softies :]
On that note, have you heard of the series Helluva Boss :0 ? (It's free to watch on yt)
I don't know your exact tastes in media but the art in the show is incredible in my opinion and the story is cool.
Just wanted to know what my favourite artist though on it if you've ever heard of it. Anygay!
Love your stuff 💙. You keep doing you Cass and i wish you a good day!
I think Victor is more like Tai Lung from Kung Fu Panda. But you have a point.
Yeah, I watched Helluva Boss, but I can't say I liked it much. The animation is beautiful and the art style looks interesting. I can appreciate well-done work, but this show doesn't really make me feel anything. I could have turned on a random youtube video instead and been more interested.
387 notes
·
View notes
Genuine question, because I don't know a lot about the topic and you're:
If someone identifies as non-binary and genderfluid, which from what I've gathered means something like "human" instead of male or female, doesn't that imply that women are not humans , like whole complete people with richer inner lives? And why is a dislike for (performative) femininity combined with a preference for things that are stereotypically associated with maleness an indicator that one is genderfluid? Does that mean a woman is only a woman if she loves to do make-up, wants to be a mother, only wears skirts, dresses and high heels, shaves daily, is always kind and never angry, has long hair, hates to get dirty and so on? Because I have never met a woman who's exactly like that in my life, but plenty who liked gaming, sports, being loud, opposed to shaving & make-up, who wore pants every day.
I do not believe this is a genuine question, but I'll answer it as if it was, just in case other people have to deal with this, and would like someone who is patient enough to give them the words.
The argument you're making here is something that already stems from a deep logical fallacy in the beginning argument. You assume "If you are neither A nor B, and instead C, you think that A cannot be C."
It is a logical fallacy to say "X implies Y" when it does not do so. By this logic, I also believe men are not human. By this logic, I believe only nb people are human.
Some - but not all - rectangles are squares. Some - but not all - animals are dogs. Some humans are nb.
I have given no information about how I present, nor my interests. I am not going to give you that information, because it's irrelevant. What I need you to understand is that, again, you are making the incorrect logical assumption that "If a person dislikes X and likes Y, they must be Z." For all you know, I dislike performative masculinity and like stereotypically feminine preferences.
You then assume your own statement is correct and move forward with your logic as if I had debated you. This is not a "genuine question" about how nb people work, this is assuming being nb is based on a series of preferences.
As a teacher, I do think it's important to tell you: even if this is coming from a genuinely confused place: you are conducting bad research. You begin with an inherently flawed question, as it biased and assumes a position I must defend against - "why don't you see women as people?" Then you make logical conclusions about my personhood and experiences and ask inflammatory questions as if you were debating me, which I am not interested in doing.
If you were my student, and genuinely curious about how nb people see gender, I'd have no trouble with you asking an out nb content creator. If you're really trying to collect information, ask honestly, without personal bias. Here's some examples of what a genuine question would have looked like:
- Do your preferences play into your gender identity?
- How has being nb informed how you see femininity and masculinity?
- What tools do you use to express your gender?
You are mistaking gender expression and gender roles as being part of my identity.
You are most crucially mistaking being nonbinary as being part of the binary and having to exist "in opposition" to other genders in order for it to "make sense". One of the most freeing things about realizing I was nb is that I don't exist in opposition to anything - and also that all gender works similarly.
Gender is a describing word, and this can be confusing for some people. In general, we tend to learn describing words in binary - short/tall, old/young, kind/mean. Therefore, there are (many) people who think - feminine/masculine must be oppositional. Gender is also a feeling word - and again, these are words that can be taught in opposition to each other. Hungry/sated, happy/sad, feminine/masculine.
But because gender is such a rare type of word - feeling and describing - it exists outside of binary. It exists more like art exists.
Green can exist in opposition to red, but it also just exists as its own color. Blue is a part of green, but it is also a part of yellow - blue is still its own color, and yellow is still its own color, and green is still its own color. One painting titled "still-life with fruit" may be a series of vague colors and boxes. Another may be a hyper-realistic singular plum. They are both how the artist expresses their personal vision of the fruit. They might even be by the same artist! And although we may compare them, they are not opposites.
One song by Hozier is not in opposition to one song by Britney Spears. They are different styles, not oppositional styles. You may choose to see them as oppositional - but that is your personal opinion, and not fact. And some people may feel and experience those songs as being actually incredibly in-line with each other.
This is why we say: gender is a spectrum. That all gender roles are made up. Personality, interests, and experiences may shape how someone sees and feels their gender, but it does not define how they see and feel their gender.
When we question gender roles and gender expression like this, it tends to make people upset. People like me tend to make people upset. So much bigotry is based on the lie that "feminine" and "masculine" are oppositional. Opposition is rigid and important - it keeps white hegemonic structures in power. I don't have time or space in this post to talk about how rigid gender roles/enforced gender expression rules are not just sexist but also racist, classist, ableist, homophobic, and bigoted; but I really recommend you do the research on how disruption of the gender binary might put the patriarchy at risk.
The thing you feel trapped by - that "being a woman" is a complicated series of rules - is exactly the kind of thing a nonbinary person would agree with you about. We have to fight hard to be recognized for what is a basic truth about our identity - of course we don't believe that gender expression is equivalent to gender identity.
And truth be told... I think you kind of knew that. I think you kind of knew all of this. I am going to hope that you are young. I'll tell you this: I was raised by someone who was a far-right extremist catholic asshole. I certainly didn't have the research/knowledge/exposure to interrogate this stuff honestly until I was probably 23.
I am so much happier now. I hope one day you get the same opportunities as I had. I hope you choose to move away from bigotry.
love u anyway. all this in kindness only.
1K notes
·
View notes
I feel like Martlet would want to go with Frisk out of the ruins. After the time she seperated from Clover she would not want that to happen with another human child.
i dont think there would be any circumstance where martlet could ever bring herself to let frisk go alone tbh. its either frisk stays in the ruins with her and toriel as long as they like or they go out into the underground together. by the end of uty's pacifist, martlet definitely has ZERO trust in the guards and asgore to just let a child walk out into a world ready to kill them on sight.
i mean, im pretty sure im not fooling anyone by doing the whole "will they wont they" about frisk leaving the ruins XD. it's really only a matter of time before they confront toriel about it, and martlet wouldnt hesitate to follow right after them. she's brought a human through the underground once, and she'd do it again no questions asked
currently i think this au takes place around 5 or 6 years after uty? so martlet definitely had time to think about her time with clover and definitely knows about what toriel does. she knows the game plan. either she helps keep the next human safe in the ruins or she keeps them safe out in the underground. still a royal guard, after all.
First - Previous - Next - Masterpost
20 notes
·
View notes
theories as to where Grace got the cigarette she was smoking after fucking Max's ghost:
she has actually secretly been an active smoker for a long time and always carries a pack with her
she bought a pack of cigarettes when she was on the run from the cops because she was stressed, and figuring that she had already disappointed the Lord by touching herself and lying to the police and dismembering a body, decided that she might as well relieve that stress by taking up smoking
Max died with a pack of cigs and a lighter on him and they stayed with him when he turned ghost and Grace pocketed them from his clothes after they had sex
she just found them in the school or on the ground somewhere after the Lords in Black meeting, and perhaps her mind made the association between sex and cigarettes and that's how she came up with the idea of giving up her chastity to end Max's reign of terror
Grace had immediately thought of giving up her virginity as the sacrifice after the Lords in Black meeting, and the entire time Steph and Pete are running away and tearfully coming to terms with Steph having to kill Pete to stop Max, Grace is running around the school or off to a drug store for cigarettes because she felt having a smoke after was that necessary
26 notes
·
View notes