killuafictive

[killuafictive]

people have very little respect for children and teenagers, even people who claim to care very much about child abuse. they will make fun of teenagers' vent art without a second thought. i wonder what sorts of things children and teenagers might make vent art about? i wonder what sorts of trauma they might be expressing with traumacore? i wonder what sorts of experiences these "cringy" teenagers with DID who have danganronpa introjects might have been through?

it's very interesting how people can understand that the world is full of people willing and able to abuse children, and they're very eager to accuse people of being child abusers, and yet they never expect children to be abused. who are these kids you apparently care so much about? are they not the children on tiktok, are they not the teenagers making bad art, are they not the kids who play roblox and fortnite, who grew up with unrestricted ipad access, who use chatgpt to write essays? are they not part of the generation that you talk about with equal pity and contempt, who you condescendingly try to "help" by telling them that they need to understand how young and stupid they are? do they not count? do they not get to be real victims? do their feelings not matter? are they not worthy of compassion? are they nothing but fuel for your doomerism? if a child who you knew was going through something, would you actually notice? if they said that your friend or family member was hurting them, would you believe them? do you even listen to them enough for them to tell you anything about their life to begin with?

[killuafictive]

.

i hate it when people pit two bad bitches against each other

(you​​​th vs chro​​​​​​​​​nophiles)

because they fundamentally misunderstand what makes you​​​​​th oppressed.

they think they're fragile little things who need Special Guidance

"i'll teach you!" "i'll give you comfort!" "i'll be around to help!"

like fuck off lol don't assume a kid would be okay with whatever you're offering Just because you happen to be a friendly adult.

being "guided" or "comforted" or anything that implies You are the powerful figure in this dynamic... whatever. it can be helpful, but help shouldn't be done from the assumption that kids are helpless. ask first.

there's this post that really bothers me about this because it's one of many that assume adults have a """special responsibility""" to take care of kids

no, wrong, everyone regardless of age should do that. including the kids' peers.

it's so. bleak when thousands of people think like this still. that adults are somehow more special and capable just because they're grown.

like yeah they have more rights, yeah they can use their rights to help (when asked for it),

but they're only legal w/ chr​​​​​​​​onoage

and it very much depends on what the kid themself wants, rather than an ambiguous Special Good Thing That Adults Are Tasked To Do

they go "i'm an adult so [i need to support kids more/protect kids more]"

when the "i'm an adult so [x]" fails in the premise of adult age being the reason for needing to do this.

and it's doubly hard to point things like these out because it can be misinterpreted as you hating kids or wanting them to suffer. just because society is deeply attached to the concept of "help" being a unanimously good thing to do without consent

anyway i got off track. because people think adults have that special responsibility, this logic warps the way they treat paras as well

so they'd think you​​​​​​​​​th chro​​​​​​nophiles should have an extra responsibility to help kids

as if their a​​​​​​​ttraction means they'd be less safe around kids

which is fucking stupid .

especially in that a lot of paras buy into it too. they think they need to prove their harmlessness just because they're adults and have this controversial experience. and in order to prove it, they think they need to be the most helpful adult ever

caring for kids but not actually stopping to ask the kid's pov. just wanting to wash their hands of harm

that's not to say i'm against them, i do feel for their plight. it can't be easy in this world where intrinsic shit is judged for no reason other than misinfo.

still, it's so annoying how adults are raised to this super-capable level and almost nobody sees how damaging this outlook is. to adults and kids both, to tel​​​​​eios and pedos and everything in-between

[killuafictive]

not anyone here or interacted with

but man i keep thinking

"well this blog's tra​​​​​​​nsage and seems supportive of all paras, maybe i was wrong about this circle of muts"

and then they turn around and make sweeping generalizations about pedos only liking yo​​​uth because they're more oppressed

as if it's not just a se​​​​​​xual o​​​rientation

oh, no, there must be some special oppressive reason pedos are like that

(alternatively they could've been using the word pedo as an adjective synonym for creeps which is also annoyingly backwards)

had been lolishotaposting and finding it a horny compliment when an anon makes a "pedo blog" for their sake, but still keeps these stupid generalizations around about real paras and is super confident that they know things

and they'll keep on doing that because most pedos wouldn't out themself just to correct someone

i don't want to start distrusting those nonrq tra​​​​​​​​​​nsage but it's certainly something to note before expecting them to actually care about paras beyond sexual objects.

[killuafictive]

if sex is no big deal and just a normal thing like having dinner with someone, how do you square that with the belief that children can't consent to sex? Like idk this whole thing of "sex is a normal act like any other and we shouldn't treat it differently" makes me soo uncomfortable because i feel like it's really obviously not in a lot of situations? Otherwise what's the difference between being told by my boss to have lunch with one of our prospective clients being told by my boss to blow one of our prospective clients? :/

let's take your dinner example to its logical conclusion, because you are on to something here, but I don't think quite in the way that you think.

children are forced to eat food that they this really dislike (due to sensory issues, allergies, or just run of the mill unfamiliarity) quite regularly by their caregivers. they are also sometimes denied the right to eat because they didn't behave the way their caretakers liked, and sent to bed hungry, or barred from eating food that they can handle, and instead left to go hungry because they won't eat food they can't handle.

treatment like this causes a lot of food issues and trauma to children. It exacerbates eating disorders and erodes a child's sense of their own body autonomy. It can also cause children to have nutritional issues and a scarcity mentality around food that can be really damaging to them.

similarly, people are forced to share meals with people who they are viscerally uncomfortable around all the time too, often to extreme negative effects. employees are forced to sit down with clients who debase them or harass them. Young people in particular are forced into sharing tables with relatives who have crossed their boundaries, insulted them, abused them, bullied them, and whom they want nothing to do with. people in recovery from eating disorders are surrounded by co-workers, family members, or friends at meal times who speak about calories and weight loss and comment on their own bodies and other people's bodies in incredibly invasive and triggering ways that often make them feel way worse, and make taking care of their own bodies far more difficult.

when a powerful institution wants to exert control over other people, they also often do so using food. prisoners are given almost no control over the kind of food they eat, and are often given very low quality food that is in a disgusting condition, or that violates their own nutritional requirements or religious beliefs. patients in hospitals and in mental institutions are also subjected to such treatment, and people in poverty are expected to eat anything that they are given without complaint. It is an extension of their dehumanization to control and limit the kinds of food they're allowed to access, and how and when they are permitted to eat.

each of these experiences surrounding food can be incredibly violating and harmful. food is quite frequently a tool of control and abuse. yet it is not because there is some magical quality to food or to dinners that make them uniquely fraught with the potential for trauma. these experiences are traumatic because they involve a violation of a person's body autonomy, and a lack of social power.

sex isn't any different from dinner. we just have a series of cultural beliefs surrounding it that make the pressure involving sex something that's both a lot more acknowledged, and mostly encountered in the private realm.

Sex is treated as an almost magical thing, at once both sinister and sacrosanct, and so people are primed to see the potential for harm in it, and it is frequently used as a tool for harming people because it is so loaded, but that doesn't mean there aren't abuses involving every other mundane human activity that we simply are conditioned to ignore because doing so is so normal.

People's body autonomy surrounding food is violated traumatically all the fucking time. unfortunately because we consider dinner to be a neutral activity and sex to be this incredibly fraught and almost magical one, we ignore the massive amounts of coercion, pressure, and violation surrounding food.

your boss shouldn't be able to force you to get dinner with someone. and people are uncomfortable with discussions about body autonomy that neutralize sex, because it forces them to confront how little freedom we actually have in every facet of our lives.

[killuafictive]

Stupidpunck

A -punk identity that is in support of "stupid" and "dumb" people and against assigning morality to intelligence levels.

This identities primary values:

Supporting those of every level of intelligence.

Supporting those who can't or struggle to read, write, talk, spell, remember things and/or think logically.

Support for those who don't want to be smarter.

Support for neurodivergent people.

Support for intellectually disabled people.

Support for all mental disabilities.

Support for those who take pride in their low intelligence.

Support for people doing things they're "bad" at.

Against cringe culture.

Against using intelligence-based insults.

Against valueing those with high intelligence over those with low intelligence.

Against blaming bigotory and misinformation on low intelligence.

This identity can be used by anyone with the above values but is primarily aimed at those who consider themselves stupid, dumb and/or unintelligent.

[killuafictive]

sorry i woke up in my ra​​​​​​ntsona

[killuafictive]

calmer now and i can see myself having been black&white there.

it's more like. blogs like these want to post jokes and age-related fun from the perspective of the small side

but they aren't that interested in actually exploring the perspective of the big side (and other so-called controversial attractions)

which would be fine if they didn't confuse "being supportive" with "knowing enough about a community to make general statements".

it also personally hurts how they're implying it's a bad word to use because i'm imagining a slippery slope

other allies could over-internalize this and when they see paras identifying as it they might go "you're probably not one of the controversial ones, just some guy using a harmful psych term"

even if that's literally misinfo and it takes balls to identify openly like that.

[killuafictive]

.

it's maybe not realistic but i think

everyone who drools for a controversial pa​​​​​​​​​​​raphilia

while not being that phile themself

should at least first delve into the para discussions others already had before actually making any Big Serious non-horny Statements about em 'philes

because par​​​​​​​​aph​​​​​​​iles r people who are regularly talked down to and dismissed and it would really suck to have that happen from our own allies too

[killuafictive]

.

very frustrating because the blog i'm vaguing normally hornyposts about the big ph​​​​​​​​ilias

and now you're trying to speak up for the poor 'philes

spouting such big words with such a surface level understanding

it annoys us so damn much how it feels. i don't know.

fe​​​​​​​​​ti​​​​​​​​shistic in the bad way

however it feels bad when your lack of knowledge is far far lacking compared to your supposed admiration of our way of life

like it's okay to have opinions no matter your (general you) level of knowledge on a subject,

and being considered sexual objects is okay with respect,

it feels like being ignored while being talked about

ohh my goddd. i need a moment to rant even tho i'm not this blog's owner

parap​​​​hilia isn't a fucking DISORDER you IDIOTS

i'm so tired of people going "this is un-woke and a dangerous concept to perpetuate because all sexualities should be accepted!"

yes. but they aren't, and this word helps us freaks know who to band with and who to oppose. be honest you can't even name the big 'philes because you'd be piled on with hate. how the fuck else are you going to signal that you're safe to us? if you can't use the specific terms that would break tos or get you flayed, then what else?

are you really going to throw away a good umbrella term JUST because it colloquially means "abnormal"?

... do you really think people aren't going to reclaim that definition ?

parap​​​​​​​​​​​​​hilia is a good word for now.

plus it's not even a disorder.

researchers have long since said it's

a se​​​​​​​xual orien​​​​​​​​​​tation

parap​​​​​​​hiliac disorders are a completely separate category that, yes, should and can be abolished. but the word itself isn't about that

like i know not everyone can look things up before posting, but pretty please before spreading easily-identifiable misinfo about the group you're supposedly supporting ?

[killuafictive]

hypocrites who think they're talking big but they're talking. rather small actually

[killuafictive]

ohh my goddd. i need a moment to rant even tho i'm not this blog's owner

parap​​​​hilia isn't a fucking DISORDER you IDIOTS

i'm so tired of people going "this is un-woke and a dangerous concept to perpetuate because all sexualities should be accepted!"

yes. but they aren't, and this word helps us freaks know who to band with and who to oppose. be honest you can't even name the big 'philes because you'd be piled on with hate. how the fuck else are you going to signal that you're safe to us? if you can't use the specific terms that would break tos or get you flayed, then what else?

are you really going to throw away a good umbrella term JUST because it colloquially means "abnormal"?

... do you really think people aren't going to reclaim that definition ?

parap​​​​​​​​​​​​​hilia is a good word for now.

plus it's not even a disorder.

researchers have long since said it's

a se​​​​​​​xual orien​​​​​​​​​​tation

parap​​​​​​​hiliac disorders are a completely separate category that, yes, should and can be abolished. but the word itself isn't about that

like i know not everyone can look things up before posting, but pretty please before spreading easily-identifiable misinfo about the group you're supposedly supporting ?

[killuafictive]

What's the deal with TMA/TME?

I'd never seen this term before and now I'm seeing it in a lot of discussions. And I just don't particularly understand it. I've never really seen an explainer on where this terminology started or why people are using it.

I personally identify my gender as queer.

TMA and TME stand for transmisogyny exempt and transmisogyny affected and to me that feels very strange for a lot of reasons

1. Why are we creating a new gender-binary for trans people to fit into?

There's many helpful terms for gender identities, but I think we all understand that binaries aren't good. Replacing men and women with men and non-men isn't good. And more than that just creating a third category/gender isn't much better. There's not just man, woman, and non-binary or AMAB, AFAB, and intersex. Many people are many different things. Some people are multiple things. Some people change what they are.

2. Why are we creating a definition based on oppression?

It feels very strange to me to self-identify by what kind of bigotry you face. I would never define my sexuality as "homophobia affected".

3. Who decides who is and isn't affected by a form of bigotry?

Transmisogyny is of course targeted primarily at trans women, but like all forms of bigotry it's more about what the bigot perceives you as. A straight man getting called a faggot is still experiencing homophobia. A trans man getting told "you'll never be a woman" because somebody doesn't really understand what being trans is is still experiencing transmisogyny.

We all laugh at the bigots who accidentally correctly gender people, but at the same time that is still a person who is obsessed with purposefully misgendering and deadnaming a trans person, even if they are wrong.

So describing a trans man or anybody as "exempt" from transmisogyny is a bit strange to me. I've also seen some people using TME that argue that trans men don't experience oppression or that the term transandrophobia to describe specific bigotry against trans man is bad to use or somehow cheapening the value of the word transmisogyny.

I've also seen discussions about whether or not non-binary people are TME or TMA based on their AGAB. Which to me feels like enforcing a binary of Women and non-binary people I consider women & non-women.

I think people are the gender they identify as. I think that bigotry is complex and while certain types target certain people, I don't think anybody is necessarily exempt or immune from it, particularly if they are perceived to be a part of a group that they are not.

Would be happy to listen to explanations of this, but it just doesn't really make sense to me.

[killuafictive]

I also think that, in the case of non-binary or intersex people, TMA and TME can be a subtle, “inclusive” way to know our AGAB. If someone asks me “Are you TMA or TME?”, I take that more as “Were you born as a man or as a woman?” Or, in some cases (depending on the person), “Are you a male non-binary or a female non-binary?” Which I don’t feel comfortable sharing.

this is also a criticism i have of the terms, it seems to be heavily reliant on ASAB/AGAB, which imho we should ditch. its only really relevant in talking about trans upbringings, and the way we were affected by the attempted gendered socialization under the patriarchy (in the way that trans people are forced into a gendered role from birth and how that is a source of trauma for many of us, not the terfy "male/female socialization" shit) we are what we are, not what we were. sure it shaped us, but our relationship to transphobia isnt able to be neatly categorized by how we got here. we are a community of exceptions. we need nuanced language to discuss our oppression.

[killuafictive]

TME and TMA as intersexist terms: as written by an intersex transfem

I’ve had a few different people in my inbox asking me why I view these terms the way I do. In particular, why I claim it’s intersexist. So, I thought I’d lay out a few examples, so everyone can understand where I’m coming from.

Imagine an intersex woman. She was assigned female at birth by her doctors, and was able to go about her childhood as a woman with no inclination that anything was amiss. Sure, she didn’t experience certain parts of puberty, but puberty was different for everyone, right?

But, later in life, she learns she has Turner syndrome. This is an intersex condition where a woman has only one X chromosome, rather than the usual two.

Soon after she learns this, she finds that laws are being made to attempt to keep trans women out of women’s spaces (often specifically sports) which use chromosomes as a defining factor of womanhood.

Would this intersex person be considered “transmisogyny affected”? She has been raised as a cisgender woman with no problems regarding being ‘clocked’, but she is also a direct target of transmisogynistic laws. She lies in a gray area.

Now, let’s go to another intersex person. Imagine an intersex man with PAIS. AIS is an intersex condition where babies are born with testes and XY chromosomes, but their body is immune to or can’t respond to androgens (which includes testosterone). Intersex people with partial AIS (PAIS) may have more ambiguous genitals, but, once they hit puberty, they begin to look “less” ambiguous, in a way that conflicts with their gender identity.

This intersex person identifies as a man, and he was assigned male at birth. However, his body does not produce testosterone, and he went through a feminizing puberty. To the average eye, he appears to be a woman now because of this.

Would this intersex person be considered “transmisogyny affected?” He was assigned male at birth, and now appears to be a woman, much like many transfems. However, if many saw how he looks now, stating that he is a male, they would probably clock him as transmasc. He was raised as a boy until puberty, and then faced astrozcization from his peers when he began a puberty that feminized him. What he was facing was a form of intersexism where transmisogyny was playing a huge part. Does his childhood matter? Can one become TME over time, when they were TMA as a child? Again, he lies in a gray area, where the answer is not quite so simple.

What about the “opposite”, per se — an intersex woman who had a masculinizing puberty? She has aromatase deficiency, which means that many ‘male’ hormones (which would usually be converted to ‘female’ hormones) would remain unconverted. She identifies as a woman, and was identified as a female at birth and was raised, until puberty, as a female. But now, she would be clocked as a trans woman upon looking at her. What does that make her? Is it different from the previous example? How and why? This intersex person also lies in a gray area. How she should be described with these terms is not clear.

And keep in mind, these are all relatively simple examples. All of the examples I listed self-identify as cisgender. But there are intersex people who are trans in any direction you can imagine.

If that last example identified as a trans woman, because she is now clocked as one, would you be able to say she’s wrong for that? What about if she identified as transmasculine, because of her experience with puberty? What if she’s multigender, bigender or genderfluid, and says she’s both transmasc and transfem because of her complicated experiences? Would that make her a TMA transmasculine person? But I thought that transmascs were all TME? That’s how it’s so often framed, anyway.

The reason why these questions are so difficult to answer is because these terms were not made with intersex people in mind. Very real intersex transfems were pushed to the wayside in favor of centering the perisex view of transgenderism. Intersex people are nothing but an inconvenient little afterthought, annoying perisex people with their demand for “inclusion” and “consideration”. (As per usual.)

You cannot simply make a new gender binary and say, “No, really, this time everyone fits into these two categories! Forcing people to confine themselves to these two rigid labels which are shown as opposites, and as never interacting, will definitely include everyone this time!!” No matter what the contents of the new binary is, it’s not going to work, because sex and gender alike are too complicated for that. There will always be people in the gray area.

You may say, “cis and transgender create a similar intersexist binary,” which is true. However, there are labels which account for this, such as ipsogender and cistrans. There are no such things within the TME/TMA framework. You may say, “TME/TMA isn’t an identity, it’s a political framework for talking about oppression,” to which I respond, “You understand how that’s worse, right?” Your political frameworks have to account for nuance, especially as it relates to other, similarly-oppressed people. Period. You may protest, “But TME/TMA describes the targets of transmisogyny, not those who are accidentally caught up in it!” But that’s not what the terms themselves say. It says “AFFECTED”. Also, in a post-Imane Khelif panic world, I don’t know how you’re still able to lie to yourself and say that intersex people are not an intentional target of transmisogyny. You may ask, “How are we supposed to talk about transmisogyny without these terms?” Well, by using the term “transmisogyny”. Also, “people who do not identify as transfem” and “transfem people” both work just fine. Maybe even “transfem people and some intersex people”, if you really want to flag yourself as an ally! There’s no need for a fancy acronym.

This isn’t even getting into the fact that these terms, for all intents and purposes, seem to have been popularized by and associated with the Baeddelism movement around 2017, which was essentially “Radical Feminism 2: We’re Trans Women, So It’s Fine!” This movement is known for chronic villainization of trans men and non-binary people who aren’t transfem. (They act like this with cis people too, but noticeably less so than they do with non-transfem trans people. How curious.) Think along the lines of how regular radfems treat all men (and who they deem to be men) as inherently morally disgusting scum who deserve to be attacked.

Methinks that maybe these terms aren’t the neutral, fact-based descriptors of oppression that many people nowadays tout them to be, considering that.

So, yeah. “Transmisogyny exempt” and “transmisogyny affected” as terms: not even once. Listen to intersex people, stop trying to make sex and gender into binaries, and for the love of God, stop drinking the queer seperationist koolaid!

[killuafictive]

letting go of the inner critic in NPD

A lot of people might think that those with NPD believe themselves to be perfect 100% of the time and never suffer from low self-esteem. The reality is that the majority of people with NPD have highs and lows of self-esteem associated with perceived failure (sometimes called “crashes”). This can make traditional self-care less useful than it would be for someone with a stable sense of self-esteem or long-term low self-esteem. An alternate method is to try to silence or “let go” of the inner critical voice.

Disclaimer: I’m just one person, I don’t speak for everyone and everyone will have different things that work for them. This has just helped me personally.

Tips:

1. Remember that there will always be something that a critical inner voice can criticise you for doing. I think the song “One” puts this very aptly: “but the list goes on forever, of all the ways i could be better, in my mind”. Even if you achieve a goal, there is always going to be something else. It’s an endless circular game with no winning. 

2. Try to accept where you are now. This is very hard and challenging, and it takes a long time to learn how to balance being rightly ambitious (eg applying for jobs, moving house etc) and being unrealistic (eg wanting excessive amounts of money). Strive to be better but realise that you *are okay* as you are, you’re flawed *because you’re human* and that’s okay. 

3. Remember that some/many things are out of your control. This particularly applies if you are disabled, queer, a person of colour, poor, a woman/woman-aligned, trans or disadvantaged in any way in society. Some institutions exist to set up barriers and make your own growth difficult. If you can’t turn in that assignment because your pain level is higher than normal today, that is *not your fault*. If you don’t want to participate in a project because of its exclusionary nature and you wouldn’t feel safe in that space, it is *not your fault* - the space is simply inaccessible to you. 

4. Considering the above, remember that you may be comparing yourself with someone who is more privileged than yourself and who has had more opportunities. Equally, remember that some things are out of your control (eg someone’s judgement of your job application) and that part of that is down to luck of the draw. 

5. Avoid comparisons, retain your compassion towards others. Remember that everyone is on a journey, everyone struggles with different things at different points in their lives. You only see the glamorous part - very few people are completely open about what they are going through. Everyone does things at a different pace; it’s okay if you take several more years to graduate (or don’t), to transition (whatever that means for you) or to become more independent. 

6. Focus on the present, try to be grateful for all that you *do* have even if your situation is challenging. Although mental illness can make this difficult, try to find at least one thing (it can be anything) that you appreciate at this point in your life. (NB it’s ok to slip up with this) Your pain is genuine and NPD can be hard to live with but sometimes it makes us forget how much we *do* have, and how much there is to live for. 

tl;dr 

1. Remember the inner critic is an endless list of how you could be better - it’s circular and doesn’t help you. 

2. Try to accept where you are now, try to strive to be better whilst realising you’re *ok* as the (flawed) human being that you are. 

3. Remember systems of oppression and that some things are out of your control. 

4. Remember not to compare yourself with people who may have more privilege or opportunity. Be aware that some elements of life are down to minute details or luck. 

5. Avoid comparisons with others, try to retain compassion towards those who may be internally struggling with the same things you are. 

6. Try to maintain a sense of gratefulness for what you have and the lifelong journey that you are a part of. 

[killuafictive]

The entire methodology of diagnosing and treating NPD, down to the language they use to talk about us, is inherently backwards. Obviously it's ableist - that's not a very hot take - but it's downright counterproductive to treatment.

One of the most basic symptoms of all personality disorders is usually referred to as "distorted thinking", and they're applying this directly to a disorder which is inherently about being vulnerable to criticisms. They're calling the symptoms of a disorder about ego dysregulation shit like "interpersonal exploitation", "thinking they're unique", "pathological need for admiration."

Don't get me wrong, it's a problem with all psychology no matter the disorder to view symptoms as in comparison to the neurotypical. But this language just isn't fucking helpful

No narcissist is going to just agree that their thinking is distorted, because their OWN DIFFERENCES IN THNKING is going to deny and justify themselves.

I think a good alternative might be "maladaptive cognitions", because they're not DISTORTED and DISORDERED and WRONG and they NEED TO BE ELIMINATED, but rather, they're just unhealthy. You can't fucking tell me the cognitive schemas that I developed to survive years of abuse is "distorted." It's an adaptation to abuse and now it's harming me

Interpersonal exploitation should be called maladaptive and/or distressing social beliefs becaue NPD exploitation/manipulation is not a conscious thought process of "oh im goign to manipulate this guy" it's an accumulation of differences in cognition and needs that leads to us behaving in the ways we do. When i shit talk someone i'm not actively thinking hm i am going to EXPLOIT THIS PERSON i am going to INTERPERSONALLY EXPLOIT THEM i am thinking an accumulation of the ways i have learned to socially behave

Thinking they're unique shouldn't even be a seperate diagnostic criterion, it's just a different manifestation of the next point so it has no need to be treated like a seperate psychological phenomena

Pathological need for admiration should be called a maladaptive view of what reassurance looks like. First of all just fuck off calling a trauma response 'pathological', dear god. Secondly, i don't "need admiration", i need REASSURANCE for my fragile ego. I would need admiration if I had a giant ego, and I fucking don't! My view of what reassurance is is just so skewed by years of trauma and social outcasting that I need an extreme amount and/or expression of it for it to mean anything to me

"I love you" oh okay asshole fuck off, "I would die for you" now you're talking -- but notice that they're expressing the same thing deep down, that i am liked and worthy of existing in the world. If i had a neurotypical, non-traumatized view of what reassurance was I would be fine being able to hear 'i love you' and get the same thing out of it, but i don't. And that's not because i ""need to be admired"" dickface it's because i love you means nothing to me after hearing meaningless two-faced sweet nothings for my entire childhood while the same people turned around and abused me

FUCK! I HATE THE AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATION! Thank you for coming to the ted talk

Don't know what to add to this, but yeah, I agree.

[killuafictive]

So anyways with the rapid rise of fascism I feel it’s a good time to point out that it’s perfectly legal to follow unjust orders slowly, badly, or inefficiently