#And most broadly

[eilooxara]

Hmm I need a tag for specifically getting angry about covid safety don't I

It is an increasingly common topic here on eilooxara dot tumblr dot com

[hermitshell]

The dichotomy in people playing their little cubitos in different smps always gets me in sort of a hilarious/complicated way

Like some people very strictly believe in making a New guy for each different universe (ie. Outsiders Owen is separate from Rats Owen or like how Origins Scott is very different from say new life Scott)

And then of course you have the opposite spectrum with people like Sausage or Martyn who have ongoing multiverse lore that connects those different universes and characters

Sometimes you have people like Jimmy who will specifically acknowledge something like double life when he mostly implies he's lived his entire life on empires and he just never elaborates

You have people like Gem who both has characters that are distinct and their own (like e1 gem) and multiverse travelers (The Gem of hermitcraft and e2)

Scar on pirates has implied he had a boatem crew but were they From pirates or are they in fact season 8 boatem??? No clue!!!

You just literally never know what kind of mixed bag you're gonna get or how vague or how extensive it will be which I both love and sit on the floor thinking about too much

Also it's very funny to me that at pretty much all times there is some server with multiple people playing multiverse chicken with each other. Truly minecraft storytelling is a beautiful medium

[lunamond]

The disproportionate hate show!Criston gets is so bizarre. No argument I’ve seen his haters make sofar has made any sense to me.

He is outside of Mysaria the only siginficant lowborn character we meet. He rises up from the son of a steward of a minor house to the position of King‘s Guard thanks to Rhaenyra, who then pressures him into having sex with her, sth that could get him executed. Afterwards she not just rejects his proposal, but laughs in his face.

And when as a result of this experience Criston is shown to be emotional distraught and bitter, people call him an incel? (I assume that they refer to his ideology and not his actual status as a celibate, because not being celibate is literally what started this mess)

It really rubs me the wrong way, when people remove all context from this situation. A lower class person getting a well-off position from a person with authority, who they then end up having sex with is ALWAYS a relationship with a power imbalance (Obviously there are irl relationships like this, who work out and manage to be relatively healthy, but that doesn‘t remove the imbalance of power and the increased likelyhood of abuse).

We see Criston‘s reluctance when Rhaenyra makes her move. It does not matter if Criston was attracted to her or not. The simple fact that he is in a vunerable position makes him denying her a risk. It also does not matter that Rhaenyra had no malicious intentions, the simple fact that she ignores Criston‘s refusal and continues pressuring make this whole scene super uncomfortable. Her ignorance and naivety does not erase the impact of her actions.

Criston growing to hate her afterwards is perfectly justified.

As a man who grew up in Westerosi society, he inevitably holds misogynist beliefs, which is reflected in the insults he uses after this. But compared to the acts of every single character on this show, singling out his character is pretty ludicrous, when we have plenty of male (and female) characters who have done worse:

Like commiting SA (Viserys, Aegon), grooming young girls (Viserys again! I really hate this man, Daemon, Otto, Corlys and Rhaenys because telling your daughter she has to sleep with a grown man when she is 14 is pretty much the same thing Otto does to Alicent) and the only major crime Criston is guilty of sofar: murder (Daemon killed his wife and the servant in Driftmark, also he did large scale police violence which people love to forget about, Rhaenys killed potentially hundreds of smallfolk at the coronation)

Obviously, anybody is allowed to dislike whatever character they want, but a lot of people flatten Criston into just a misogynistic bitter incel who is just mad that Rhaenyra has sex, ignoring every bit of context we get for his behaviour.

This becomes escpecially weird, when those same people have no problem stanning Daemon, who calls his 1st wife a „bitch“, „uglier than sheep“ and then murders her, because he sees her as inferior as a none-valyrian. But Criston calling Rhaenyra, a person he feels personally wronged by, a „spoiled cunt“ is apparently a too far.

It is just really frustating when the character with the canonically lowest social standing gets afforded the least amount of nuance by the fandom (the writers are obvs not excempt from this criticism either).

[crookedtines]

For some reason I never considered that looms could be small and projects could be accessible ?? How did you get started weaving and what resources did you use?? I saw some of the work you’ve made and I want to get started learning so badly!! Help!

Yess! Weaving is great because of how accessible it can be!! Something I also only recently realized!

I've been enamored with weaving ever since 6 year old me saw an enormous floor loom in action at a textile museum. Despite my fascination with textiles, it still took 20ish years before I picked up weaving as a hobby. Looms were pricy, big, and complicated. It wasn't until I came across bandweaving that it really felt like something I could casually pick up without committing to spending a ton of time and money. I started with tablet weaving, but have since switched to weaving with a heddle. I've been learning by referencing books, looking up weaving process videos, and a lot of trial, error, and experimentation.

Here's a list of resources for two very accessible types of weaving that don't need a loom:

Resources for tablet weaving

Tablets can be bought, but are also easy to make at home from a deck of cards, cereal boxes, recycled plastic, etc. You can find a tutorial for creating your own here.

Tablets at Work by Claudia Wollny An incredibly comprehensive book featuring 22 tablet weaving techniques. The book is written in German and English. Highly recommend for the very enthusiastic.

Card Weaving by Candace Crockett The book that got me started. Easy to follow, informative, and much cheaper and easier to find than Tablets at Work.

Elewys of Finchingefeld A great youtube channel for historic tablet weaving.

Resources for weaving with a heddle

Rigid heddles can be bought or laser cut, and string heddles are created at home out of yarn/string. They are similar, but offer different advantages. Rigid heddles can be simpler to work with, especially if you're working with multiple sheds. String heddles require a few more steps to open the down shed, but don't distort the width of your warp threads. This allows you to weave further down your warp, and makes it easier to keep an even band width.

Here is tutorial for creating your own string heddles.

Norwegian Pick-Up Bandweaving by Heather Torgenrud The book that I learned from! Focuses on pick-up weaving, but is a good introduction to bandweaving in general.

Durham Weaver has a blog and youtube channel. They tend to focus on Scandinavian style weaving, and feature content on weaving with a double slotted heddle, as well as how to set up your warp.

Backstrap Weaving by Laverne Waddington is a blog packed with information about weaving with string heddles. They tend to focus on Latin American style weaving.

A Spinner Weaver is a blog about inkle weaving, though the techniques can be done off of a loom as well. Inkle looms are among the cheaper looms and are designed for bandweaving.

[shinelikethunder]

it'd be interesting to see a version of that Beloathed Fanfic Terminology poll that skips all the general clumsy-writing foibles and focuses on shibboleths specific to fic culture (esp LJ/AO3 "house style"). blown pupils. toeing off shoes. italicized "oh." huffing a laugh. "fisted" as a synonym for "grabbed," often in contexts where The Author Should Damn Well Know That Raises Awkward Disambiguation Issues. entire clusters of statistically-improbable dialogue tags that i can't think up examples of offhand, but would absolutely clock if i saw them in the wild. scent X, scent Y, and something uniquely him. fill in your own; i'm sure there are tons more.

some of them i find kinda charming, and most of the ones above don't really bother me except that they sometimes ring a bit cliché, and/or are so jarringly fanfic-specific that they can interfere with a narrative voice that's less so. but my stupid-ass hill to die on is that "blown pupils" drives me NUTS. I Have Never Fucking Noticed Someone's Eyes Doing That, let alone doing that from being turned on. let alone so dramatically as to be understood shorthand for "turned on," rather than "concussed" or "on the way back from the ophthalmologist's office" or "on So Many Drugs" or "having a fucking stroke." and if i - with an existing pet peeve about this phrase in fanfic - have never taken time out of a makeout session to note the relative pupil dilation of the person i'm sucking face with, i guaran-fuckin'-tee you that Emotional Constipation McManlyMan from your slash fics would not fucking say that even in internal narration, and definitely would not have that exact wording on hand as a stock turn of phrase. come the fuck on.

[jacksprostate]

Treatise on why No, the doctor just giving the narrator of Fight Club (full name) his requested sleep medication or sending him to therapy would not have Fixed Him

Firstly, saying giving him the insomnia meds would’ve fixed him ignores the reason he has insomnia in the first place. He is so deeply upset by his place in society that he literally cannot sleep. Drugging him to sleep would not change that. That, of course, is the easy, quick response.

But with regard to therapy? The biggest flaw is that it ignores a central tenet of the book. Part of what tortures the narrator and drives him to invent Tyler is that his feelings about this collective, systemic issue are constantly reduced to a Just Him thing. His seatmates ask what his company is. He’s the only one upset at the office. He gets weird looks if he says the truth of what he does. People will do anything in their power to pretend he is the issue, as an individual, because it is far scarier to consider the full implications of the systemic issues implied by what he is saying. Everyone treats it as if the issue is him, so he goes insane. He does anything to get someone to say, holy shit, that’s fucked up, what you’re a part of is wrong. In an attempt to feel any sort of vague sympathy and catharsis, he goes to support groups to pretend to be dying, because then at least people don’t habitually blame him for his anguish. 

Saying therapy would fix him ignores that his problems are not individual. They are collective. It’s the reason the entire story resonates with people! Something deeply, unignorably wrong with society, where people would rather blame you for bringing it up than try and address it, because it feels impossible. I don’t blame people for this, really, because it IS scary. It’s terrifying to sit and feel like you’ve realized there’s something deeply, deeply wrong, but if you say something, people will get mad at you since it’s so baked into everything around you. Or, even if they agree, it’s easier to deal with the dissonance by pretending it’s individual.

And it’s not like that’s not the purpose therapy and medications largely serve, anyway. Getting into dangerous territory for this website, but ultimately, the reason the narrator was seeking medication was because it’s a bandaid. A very numbing bandaid. For these very large, dissonance causing problems, therapy does very little. Medications do what they always have, and distract you with numbness or side effects. It’s a false solution. He is seeking an individualized false solution because he has been browbeaten with the idea that this is an issue with him alone, when it's plainly clear it's not. 

Don't get me wrong. Obviously he has something wrong with him. But it's a product of his situation. It is a fictional exaggeration of a very real occurrence of mental illness provoked by deep unconscionable dissonance and anguish.  There is a clear correlation between what happens and his mental state and his job and how isolated he is. 

The thing is, even if he were chemically numbed, I do think he would’ve lost it regardless. Many people on meds find they don’t fix things. For reasons I’ll get into, but in this case because even if numbed or distracted, once you’ve learned about deep, far reaching corruption in society, it’s very hard to forget. Especially if, in his case, you literally serve as the acting hand of this particular variety. He’s crawling up the walls. 

So why do people say this?  Well, it's funny I guess. Maybe the first time or whatever. But also, often, they believe it, to a degree. Maybe they've just been told how effective therapy and meds are for mental illness, they believe wholeheartedly in The Disease Model of Mental Illness, maybe they themselves have engaged with either and have considered it successful. Maybe they or someone they know has been 'saved' by such treatments. 

But in all honesty.... What therapy can help with is mentality, it's how you approach problems. For issues on a smaller scale, not meaning they are easier to deal with my any degree, but ones that are not raw and direct from deep awareness of corruption; these are things that can be worked through if you get lucky and get an actually good therapist who helps build up your resiliency. But when your issue is concrete, something large and inescapable? It's useless. At best it can help you develop coping mechanisms, but there is a limit for that. There is a point where that fails. To develop the ability to handle something like this requires intense development of a comfort with ambiguity and dissonance and being isolated and a firm positioning of your purpose and values and and belief in wonder and all the other shit I ramble about. The things that the narrator lacks, which lead him to taking an ineffectual death knell anarchist self-destruction path. Therapy, where the narrator is, full of the knowledge of braces melted to seats and all the people that have to allow this to happen? It fails. 

And meds — meds are a fucking scam. We know the working mechanism of basically none of them, the serotonin receptor model was made up and paid its way into prominence. We have very little evidence they're any better than placebo, and they come with genuinely horrific side effects. Maybe you got lucky. I did, on some meds. On others? I don't remember 2018. The pharmaceutical industry is also known for rampant medical ghostwriting, and for creating 'off-label' uses for drugs that have gained too many protests in their original use, then creating a cult of use to then have 'grassroots' campaigns for it to be made a label use (ie, legitimize their ghostwritten articles with guided anecdotes). 

The DSM itself is basically a marketing segregation plot. It's an attempt to legitimize the disease model by isolating subgroups of symptoms to propose individualized treatments for subgroups that are not necessarily all that separate. But if the groups exist, you can prescribe more and different medications, no? Not to mention, if you use the disease model, you can propose that these diseases are permanent, or permanent until treated, considered more and more severe to offset and justify the horrific side effects of the medications. Do you know why male birth control doesn't really exist? Same reason. They can justify all the horrible side effects for women, because the other option is pregnancy. For men, it's nothing. 

And they're not bothering to invent new drugs without side effects. When they invent new drugs it's just because the last one got too bad of a name, or they can enter a new market. Modern drugs don't work any better than gen1 drugs. They still have horrific side effects. At best, the industry will shit out studies saying the old one was flawed (truth) so they can say this new gen will be better (lie). They're doing it with ssris right now. 

Fundamentally, the single proposed benefit of any of these drugs is that they numb you. To whatever is torturing you. It's harder to be depressed if you can't feel it, or if you just can't muster the same outrage. Of course, there is people who find that numbness to be helpful, or worth it. But often, it's stasis. For the people who have problems that can be worked on, it serves as a stopgap to not actually work on said problems. The natural outcome of the disease model is stagnation for those whose need is to develop skills and resiliency. It keeps them medicalized and dependent on the idea that they're diseased and incapable. Profitable. Stuck in the womb. 

I’ve been there. It’s easier, to wallow, and resist growth because it’s difficult and painful and unfair and cruel and you can think of five billion reasons to justify your languishing. But don’t listen to anyone who tells you you’re just permanently damaged, no matter how nicely they word it, no identity or novel pathologization, no matter how many benefits they promise, especially if they swear up and down some lovely expensive medications with little solid backing and plentiful off-label usage and side effects that’ll kill you. Some days it feels like they want us all stuck in pods, agoraphobic and addicted to the ads they feed us to isolate the markets for the drugs they’ve trained us to beg them to pump us with. Polarization making it as easy as flashing blue light for go, red like for stop, or vice versa. I worry about the kids, for fucks sake. That’s a bit dark and intense, and I apologize. But I want you (generic) to understand, there is a profit motive. Behind everything. And they do not mean well. They do not care about your mental health or your rights or your personhood or your growth. They care about how they can profit off of you.

For those struggling with immovable, society problems, like the narrator grappling with how his job fits into and is accepted by society while his rejection and horror in the face of it does not, it can work about as well as any other drug addiction. Your mileage may vary. From what I've seen, recovering from being on prozac for a long time can be worse than alcohol. They put kids on this shit. They keep campaigning for more. Off label, again. A pharmaceutical company’s favorite thing to do has to be to spread rumors of someone who knows someone who said an off label use of this drug helps with this little understood condition. Or, in the case of mental illness, questionably defined condition. And like, damn, I know I'm posting on the 'medicalization is my identity' website so no one will like all this and has probably stopped reading by now, but yall should be exposed to at least one person who doubts this stuff. Doesn't just trust it. Because I mean, that's the thing right?

It's so big. What would it mean, for this all to be true? Yeah, everyone says pharmaceutical companies are evil and predatory and ghostwriting, but to think about what that really entails. Coming back to the book, everyone knows the car lobby is huge and puts dangerous vehicles through that kill people. What does it mean if the car companies all hire people to calculate the cost of a recall and the cost of lawsuits? No one wants to think about the scale that means for people allowing it or the systems that have to be geared towards money, not safety like they say. Hell, even Chuck misses the beat and has the narrator threaten his boss with the Department of Transportation. And shit, man, if every company is doing this, you think Transportation doesn't know? That they give a fuck? You're better off mailing all the evidence to the news outlets and hoping they only character assassinate you a little bit as they release the news in a way that says it's all the fault of little workers like you, not the whole system. Something something, David McBride, any whistleblower you feel like, etc. 

So I don't blame you, if your reaction is "but but but, that can't be right, people wouldn't do it, they wouldn't allow it" or just an overwhelming feeling of dread that pushes you to deny all of this and avoid thinking about it. Just know, that's in the book. That's all the seatmates on the flights. That's all his fellow officemates. It's easier to pretend, I know.

But think about, how the response fits in with the themes of the book. The story, as a movie too. What drives the narrator’s mental breakdown? How would you handle being in his position? How would you handle being his seatmate? It’s easy to say you’d listen. But have you? Have you had any soul wrenching betrayals of how you thought society worked? How about a betrayal by the thing that promised to be the fix of the first? Can you honestly say you wouldn’t follow that gut instinct, saying follow what everyone says, that person must just be crazy, evil, rude, cruel, whatever it is that means you can set what they said aside?

For a lot of people, they can do that, I guess. Set it aside. Reaching that aforementioned state of managing to cope with the dissonance and ambiguity and despair is very hard. The narrator made the Big Realization, but he couldn’t cope. He self-destructed. Even when people don’t make the big realization consciously, they’re already self-destructing. It’s hard to escape it when it feels easier than continuing anyway. When it feels like the only option,

Would therapy fix the narrator of Fight Club? Would meds fix the narrator of Fight Club? No. He knows too much. All meds will do, by the time he’s in the psych ward, is spiritually neuter him. A silly phrase, but really. Take the wind out of his sails. 

Is he fixed if he doesn’t try to blow up town? If he just shuts up and settles in and stops costing money? If he still can’t cope with the things he’s unearthed? Do you see how this is a commentary in a commentary in a commentary?

Fight Club is an absolutely fascinating story because of this. The fact that it addresses the fallout of knowing. The isolation. The hopelessness. The spiral that results from a lack of hope. This is, I think, what resonates most with people, even if not consciously. Going insane because you’ve discovered something you wish you could unknow. It’s a classic horror story. Should our society be lovecraftian evil? I don’t think so. 

Do I think changing it will be easy? No. Lord knows a lot exists to push people who make these sorts of Realizations towards feelings of individuality and individualized solutions and denial and other distractions and coping methods. And to prevent people who make One realization from expanding on it and considering further ramifications. Fight Club itself gets into this; the isolation of men being a strict part of the role society shapes for their sex leaves them very vulnerable to death fetishes, in a sense, and generally towards self destructive violence. It helps funnel them away from substantial change and towards ineffectual change. Many things, misogyny, racism, serve to keep people isolated from one another, individualized, angry, and impossible to work with. Market segregation; god knows even appealing on those fronts has become such a classic ploy that companies do it now, the US military frames its plundering that way, etc. 

I’ve wandered a bit but ultimately, my point is this: Fight Club is a love letter to the horrors of critical thinking, and the importance of not falling into the trap of self destruction and hopelessness in the face of it. The latter is why Tyler was an anarchoterrorist instead of anything useful. The latter is why it was a death cult. It’s important to work through the horrors of critical thinking so you can do it, and stand on the other side ready to believe in each other. It’s worth it.

[aro-culture-is]

Alloaro culture is wanting a similar word to qpr for a committed partner you have sex with sometimes that is not romantic: qpr isn’t right because it has the word platonic in it.

hi! in a very gentle way, i am vibrating to let you know this is incorrect :)

from the POV of someone who's been around the aro community since ~2013-2014 on tumblr, the only time i've seen folks start to say that qprs couldn't include sexual components has been when

they've learned an incorrect definition of QPRs, or

in one particularly notable case, the individual proposing it turned out to be quite sex negative and upset at the mere thought that people could think that qprs could include sexual activity. this individual suggested an alternative term for individuals desiring sex in QPRs in a rather explicitly alloarophobic measure. when gently called out from what had seemed to be a genuine attempt at coining a new term, the above came to light. smaller cases of this pop up every once in a while, but this one got some notoriety.

queerplatonic was always meant to mean "queering the idea of a platonic relationship", "queering the idea of what a relationship means", and by explicit definition, has always been broadly and radically inclusive. any relationship, so long as the partners involved agree it is a queerplatonic one, is queerplatonic. no exceptions. this can mean it involves romance, sex, traditionally platonic elements, and anything and everything those involved desire out of it.

tldr; the word platonic is in queerplatonic to say it is counter to the idea of a restricted "platonic" relationship.

[murphysletsdraw]

So much good advice boils down to "make practical things as easy for yourself as possible" and it's amazing how often I can give and get that type of advice and still feel like it's either unthinkable or unforgivable for me to cut completely arbitrary corners. Who cares if I "could" or "should" stand up in the shower? Who cares if I "deserve" or "need" a shower chair? I don't want to stand up! It takes energy I'd rather spend on something else. All this talk about "working smart, not hard", but who really believes it and when do they think it applies? Effort is not a good in itself, a reward earned or a goal met is not more worthwhile because you've suffered for it. Truth, justice, love, those things are worth struggling for and still we judge ourselves if we don't use up that energy on like... choosing the stairs over the escalator or whatever else. Nonsense!

[mwagneto]

the sheer number of episodes where towards the end the doctor is like it's okay everyone get out, i'll die so you can all be saved!!!!! only for one of the episodic characters to be like don't worry doctor go run and survive i'll eat the bullets for you

[drdemonprince]

your post about only communicating the minimum needed reminded me of the gricean maxims (concept in linguistics describing how people communicate)! your advice was very similar to the maxim of quantity :)

From the UPenn School of Arts & Sciences site:

Grice's Maxims

The maxim of quantity, where one tries to be as informative as one possibly can, and gives as much information as is needed, and no more.

The maxim of quality, where one tries to be truthful, and does not give information that is false or that is not supported by evidence.

The maxim of relation, where one tries to be relevant, and says things that are pertinent to the discussion.

The maxim of manner, when one tries to be as clear, as brief, and as orderly as one can in what one says, and where one avoids obscurity and ambiguity.

[commsroom]

i think one of the boldest and best moves wolf 359 makes in its character development is that, in terms of the major defining events that led him to where he is, eiffel doesn't have a tragic backstory so much as he is responsible for the tragic backstory of someone else.

(the archetype of the everyman protagonist who copes with past trauma via humor does in many ways describe eiffel, but like with every character in wolf, it's the complexity of their circumstances that make them feel like real people with believable inner worlds. they don't subvert the archetypes they represent, exactly; they're just people, complex and contradictory, who ultimately can't be constrained by the expectations or defined lines of the narratives imposed on them.)

eiffel believes this is an intrinsic part of who he is, that he was "just those mistakes"; he externalizes his desire for redemption and that manifests as lenience towards people who lack his fundamental desire for growth. and in failing to recognize his own ability for growth, he presents himself as a doomed character archetype more than a person; he sidelines himself as an observer within his own story. his guilt and self-hatred allow him to in some way abdicate responsibility, to see his failings as inevitable, and it's only accepting his own complexity and capacity to be more, the human quality he recognizes so fervently in others, that frees him from those self-imposed conceptions.

(once my friend kit said that eiffel “defines the tone and the moral compass of wolf 359 so strongly that if you put him into any other series he would turn it into wolf 359 too” and i think about that a lot.)

doug eiffel is wolf 359, in all it believes, and despite his perception of himself as the weakest link, he is so interwoven with both the crew of the hephaestus and the themes of the show that he is inseparable from either. he doesn't always embody the show's values or its morals - in fact, he frequently fails to live up to them as much as he'd like - but he is the one who advocates for them. "it's not just about surviving; it's about being able to live with ourselves after we get off this tin can."

it's a show about communication; he is an intermediary, a vessel for communication - sometimes literally, and he's also just a guy who is still trying to learn how to communicate better himself. what eiffel represents is a flawed, contradictory, unpredictable, irrepressible humanity, singular, and so desperately in need of connection. the show's love of humanity is truer for that. he has genuinely done wrong, in ways he may not ever be forgiven for. he has very real flaws, some of which persist through the entire show, even as he's consciously trying to do better. and he is very much human, and very much loved.

[northern-passage]

wait so is both lea and clem doms? becuse if that si the case my MCs poor brain is gonna melt.

LOL

i don't usually answer asks like these (dom/sub or top/bottom asks are like the main reason i limit nsfw asks on this blog) but i want to say that it honestly just depends.

i've written a lot of intimate scenes now since i've started seriously writing like 4 yrs ago and i've never really written any character that's strictly one or the other. in my personal experience i find that it's usually just not the case for a lot of people & that it depends on the relationship, the situation, and communication. of course there are people that only ever want to do one or the other, not trying to argue that or invalidate anyone, my character Valentina from blood choke is a high femme (or as some would say, a pillow princess), but if you've read her intimate scenes you know that it's not that simple because of her experiences & the fact that she's not comfortable with the mc yet.

specifically it's the portrayal in fiction; i dislike the tendency in romance to make it so rigid without even having the characters ever discuss their preferences or sex in general in any meaningful way. i especially dislike the way a lot of authors and readers treat top/bottom/vers as interchangeable with dom/sub/switch and also as personality traits (it is literally just sexual preference) again it's mainly why i don't answer these kinds of questions or label my characters in that way because people take it and assume certain things about them that have nothing to do with sex. as in, people see Lea being a handler and kind of bossy and either assume that means they have to be a dom cus they just Have to be in control at all times, or to be "subversive," they must be a sub because actually they secretly long to not be in control at all! which is. incorrect in both instances. again there are people that may feel this way and this experience does represent them, but i don't like that it's the general assumption - this person is like this, so this must be the kind of sex they like, etc.

anyways all that to say that it depends on your mc and the situation. with tnp, i like trying to give the player a chance to choose how to approach sexual encounters, and i also want to do it in a way that will respect the other characters and their preferences, too. currently the only intimate scene in game has Merry taking the lead, but it fades to black before anything can really happen. i intend for later scenes to be longer & more interactive.

[remanedur-art]

If you had to pick.

What are you top 5 kinks?

eooo

1.) enf

2

why is that 2 so big

2.) excessive cum

3.) why the fuck do these numbers keep being really big when i type them initially but then go back to normal when i type anything else

3.) pretty light bondage

4.) human x anthro

5.) i dont know if there's a single term for it but whenever characters have like, nigh uncontrollably high libido esp with mixed with any of the above like jus bein on the brink of cumming really hard or that but they're also tied down so they cant. that, whatever that's called

[glorious-spoon]

i think that if you're at the point where you're making up snide little nicknames for rival shippers, you have perhaps lost the plot a little

[wonder-worker]

"[Elizabeth Woodville's] piety as queen seems to have been broadly conventional for a fifteenth-century royal, encompassing pilgrimages, membership of various fraternities, a particular devotion to her name saint, notable generosity to the Carthusians, and the foundation of a chantry at Westminster after her son was born there. ['On other occasions she supported planned religious foundations in London, […] made generous gifts to Eton College, and petitioned the pope to extend the circumstances in which indulgences could be acquired by observing the feast of the Visitation']. One possible indicator of a more personal, and more sophisticated, thread in her piety is a book of Hours of the Guardian Angel which Sutton and Visser-Fuchs have argued was commissioned for her, very possibly at her request."

-J.L. Laynesmith, "Elizabeth Woodville: The Knight's Widow", "Later Plantagenet and Wars of the Roses Consorts: Power, Influence, Dynasty"

[prolibytherium]

I know I've been making 'we are fucked' posts all winter whenever it crests 50 degrees but the amount of people who are under the impression that climate change just suddenly got 10000x worse from last year to this one is kind of worrying.

I mean I guess it's not a bad thing if it catalyzes increased public reckoning, but we're still going to see 'normal' winters happening throughout our lifetimes, we'll still see abnormally COLD and snowy winters, and that can't be mistaken for things suddenly getting 'better'. It's critically important to understand climate change as a shift in overall trends and not something accurately reflected by year to year variation