#form of reference to understand what they're experiencing

[babykittenteach]

I'm never going to fault someone bringing up dicks in Ed's orifices. This is another good and complicated topic. For illustration, story time? A couple years ago, I made a fandom predictor in a google sheet. For fun. I make spreadsheets of things for fun. I have been doing fandom since I was a preteen, it's been a couple decades since then, and you notice trends. The predictor had Character A, Character B, and you filled in stuff like who was taller, who was older, who was stronger, who was more booksmart, who wore darker or lighter clothing, etc. At the end it predicted which one the fandom was going to declare The Bottom with degrees of certainty like "probably" or "definitely", etc. I ran it through some friends and we checked the results against ao3 for a bunch of fandoms. It got it right for most things, except iirc Disco Elysium? Not my fandom, I can't comment, but that was fun. Fandom has habits. And those habits come in a suite of things, where no one thing has to be true all the time but probably several others are. The associations we make about gender roles, about sexual preferences, about sexual roles, about race, about disability are formed by the societies we grew up in and the cultures and subcultures we live in, and we carry them through the world like this set of filters we pull out to look at things. The human brain likes shorthand because it speeds things up and frees cognitive capacity. No one is bad or wrong or guilty for having a brain that instinctively does this because that's how it's supposed to work. But it strips nuance and when it comes to the shorthand you learn from your society, it comes with a whole lotta baggage about marginalized people Women are dumb and passive, black and brown people are aggressors, disabled people don't deserves agency, etc. Tropes and assumptions whose function isn't understanding but diminishing the respect and social power people are given. Sometimes it's even about something you are, and you have learned to, like I reference in another reply, minimize yourself. You have internalized the shorthand. When it comes to fandom's associations, you probably know the general shape of it. Femme = bottom = weak = weepy = passive = incompetent and so on. Maybe one or two things aren't true at any given time, but probably more are than aren't. Like I said, google sheets predictor.

But, that's describing a trend. Trends are not the fault of one specific person, and moreover, fandom's full of both weirdos and nerds. People who might not have taken that socialization exactly the same, people who have innate quirks and preferences that color their associations, or people who actually are in some process of looking at and dismantling their associations. It's really hard to know off a single data point around here if, to use the plushie example, any given person who gives Ed a plushie is also imbuing him with the bog standard cloud of associations that are the overall trend but may not be this one person's thing.

So people can argue about plushies and that plushie carries with it both their own associations, and what they assume other people associate with it. People can argue about babygirling and it's really about the suite of things they've brought to it and have experienced other people bringing to it.

Best I got on combating this is you should try to be specific and narrow about what you're talking about and do your best to, in good faith, figure out if you and who you're disagreeing with are working on the same assumptions.

Probably. Lol, idk, that sounds like something wise, but I do sometimes just block people off those assumptions instead of bothering to figure out if they've Done [X] to Ed because they're treating him like a helpless dumb caveman or Done [Y] to Stede because they're slotting him into weepy nerdy forever bottom, etc etc. both for things I just don't like on taste or things I find insulting. You can just avoid digging into shit a lot of time as long as you're not going to then argue with people in public without trying to understand them or explain your position.

Not in response to any one specific take, but how much of the grey area for people in the back and forth about the ethics of babygirling is due in part to the conflation of cuteness and incompetence? The girls and the gays and especially the bottoms can't math can't drive need jars opened etc etc etc type humor that I would say is rampant on tumblr and tiktok, because it is, if that didn't obfuscate that it's an old trope across like all of society.

Because there's a lot of other sources of cuteness, most of which aren't demeaning --personally I'm a fan, one will note, of dresses and plushies and sparkly eyes, etc.-- but there's a lot of internet culture built up around treating helplessness as charming. And perhaps on this specific part of the internet, there's a somewhat high rate of neurodivergent people who are invested in various inabilities being treated as lovable.

Stick that in a blender with race and you can have at the exact same time both the legacy of black and brown people not being allowed the affection of being seen as cute/pretty and the legacy of black and brown people being seen as incapable. Add in a general lack of specificity, and while we're at it, some people who just don't seem to like certain tropes because it's just not their thing holding grudges and some other people defensive because it is their thing, and honestly, any time I stick my eyeballs back on tumblr it doesn't seem like anything like actual synthesis is happening.

Idk, but this late night post is not actually in defense of or accusatory towards any Thing Someone Did so much as general meta musing about how people talk about things.

[sha-brytols]

DAV does tackle the struggles of minorities though? There's literally an entire companion quest about being trans/nonbinary.

ok so in the nicest way possible i have never seen a more tellingly privileged take in my entire life

[sophiamcdougall]

You're a reasonably informed person on the internet. You've experienced things like no longer being able to get files off an old storage device, media you've downloaded suddenly going poof, sites and forums with troves full of people's thoughts and ideas vanishing forever. You've heard of cybercrime. You've read articles about lost media. You have at least a basic understanding that digital data is vulnerable, is what I'm saying. I'm guessing that you're also aware that history is, you know... important? And that it's an ongoing study, requiring ... data about how people live? And that it's not just about stanning celebrities that happen to be dead? Congratulations, you are significantly better-informed than the British government! So they're currently like "Oh hai can we destroy all these historical documents pls? To save money? Because we'll digitise them first so it's fine! That'll be easy, cheap and reliable -- right? These wills from the 1850s will totally be fine for another 170 years as a PNG or whatever, yeah? We didn't need to do an impact assesment about this because it's clearly win-win! We'd keep the physical wills of Famous People™ though because Famous People™ actually matter, unlike you plebs. We don't think there are any equalities implications about this, either! Also the only examples of Famous People™ we can think of are all white and rich, only one is a woman and she got famous because of the guy she married. Kisses!"

Yes, this is the same Government that's like "Oh no removing a statue of slave trader is erasing history :(" You have, however, until 23 February 2024 to politely inquire of them what the fuck they are smoking. And they will have to publish a summary of the responses they receive. And it will look kind of bad if the feedback is well-argued, informative and overwhelmingly negative and they go ahead and do it anyway. I currently edit documents including responses to consultations like (but significantly less insane) than this one. Responses do actually matter. I would particularly encourage British people/people based in the UK to do this, but as far as I can see it doesn't say you have to be either. If you are, say, a historian or an archivist, or someone who specialises in digital data do say so and draw on your expertise in your answers. This isn't a question of filling out a form. You have to manually compose an email answering the 12 questions in the consultation paper at the link above. I'll put my own answers under the fold. Note -- I never know if I'm being too rude in these sorts of things. You probably shouldn't be ruder than I have been.

Please do not copy and paste any of this: that would defeat the purpose. This isn't a petition, they need to see a range of individual responses. But it may give you a jumping-off point.

Question 1: Should the current law providing for the inspection of wills be preserved?

Yes. Our ability to understand our shared past is a fundamental aspect of our heritage. It is not possible for any authority to know in advance what future insights they are supporting or impeding by their treatment of material evidence. Safeguarding the historical record for future generations should be considered an extremely important duty.

Question 2: Are there any reforms you would suggest to the current law enabling wills to be inspected?

No.

Question 3: Are there any reasons why the High Court should store original paper will documents on a permanent basis, as opposed to just retaining a digitised copy of that material?

Yes. I am amazed that the recent cyber attack on the British Library, which has effectively paralysed it completely, not been sufficient to answer this question for you.  I also refer you to the fate of the Domesday Project. Digital storage is useful and can help more people access information; however, it is also inherently fragile. Malice, accident, or eventual inevitable obsolescence not merely might occur, but absolutely should be expected. It is ludicrously naive and reflects a truly unpardonable ignorance to assume that information preserved only in digital form is somehow inviolable and safe, or that a physical document once digitised, never need be digitised again..At absolute minimum, it should be understood as certain that at least some of any digital-only archive will eventually be permanently lost. It is not remotely implausible that all of it would be. Preserving the physical documents provides a crucial failsafe. It also allows any errors in reproduction -- also inevitable-- to be, eventually, seen and corrected. Note that maintaining, upgrading and replacing digital infrastructure is not free, easy or reliable. Over the long term, risks to the data concerned can only accumulate.

"Unlike the methods for preserving analog documents that have been honed over millennia, there is no deep precedence to look to regarding the management of digital records. As such, the processing, long-term storage, and distribution potential of archival digital data are highly unresolved issues. [..] the more digital data is migrated, translated, and re-compressed into new formats, the more room there is for information to be lost, be it at the microbit-level of preservation. Any failure to contend with the instability of digital storage mediums, hardware obsolescence, and software obsolescence thus meets a terminal end—the definitive loss of information. The common belief that digital data is safe so long as it is backed up according to the 3-2-1 rule (3 copies on 2 different formats with 1 copy saved off site) belies the fact that it is fundamentally unclear how long digital information can or will remain intact. What is certain is that its unique vulnerabilities do become more pertinent with age."  -- James Boyda, On Loss in the 21st Century: Digital Decay and the Archive, Introduction.

Question 4: Do you agree that after a certain time original paper documents (from 1858 onwards) may be destroyed (other than for famous individuals)? Are there any alternatives, involving the public or private sector, you can suggest to their being destroyed?

Absolutely not. And I would have hoped we were past the "great man" theory of history. Firstly, you do not know which figures will still be considered "famous" in the future and which currently obscure individuals may deserve and eventually receive greater attention. I note that of the three figures you mention here as notable enough to have their wills preserved, all are white, the majority are male (the one woman having achieved fame through marriage) and all were wealthy at the time of their death. Any such approach will certainly cull evidence of the lives of women, people of colour and the poor from the historical record, and send a clear message about whose lives you consider worth remembering.

Secondly, the famous and successsful are only a small part of our history. Understanding the realities that shaped our past and continue to mould our present requires evidence of the lives of so-called "ordinary people"!

Did you even speak to any historians before coming up with this idea?

Entrusting the documents to the private sector would be similarly disastrous. What happens when a private company goes bust or decides that preserving this material is no longer profitable? What reasonable person, confronted with our crumbling privatised water infrastructure, would willingly consign any part of our heritage to a similar fate?

Question 5: Do you agree that there is equivalence between paper and digital copies of wills so that the ECA 2000 can be used?

No. And it raises serious questions about the skill and knowledge base within HMCTS and the government that the very basic concepts of data loss and the digital dark age appear to be unknown to you. I also refer you to the Domesday Project.

Question 6: Are there any other matters directly related to the retention of digital or paper wills that are not covered by the proposed exercise of the powers in the ECA 2000 that you consider are necessary?

Destroying the physical documents will always be an unforgivable dereliction of legal and moral duty.

Question 7: If the Government pursues preserving permanently only a digital copy of a will document, should it seek to reform the primary legislation by introducing a Bill or do so under the ECA 2000?

Destroying the physical documents will always be an unforgivable dereliction of legal and moral duty.

Question 8: If the Government moves to digital only copies of original will documents, what do you think the retention period for the original paper wills should be? Please give reasons and state what you believe the minimum retention period should be and whether you consider the Government’s suggestion of 25 years to be reasonable.

There is no good version of this plan. The physical documents should be preserved.

Question 9: Do you agree with the principle that wills of famous people should be preserved in the original paper form for historic interest?

This question betrays deep ignorance of what "historic interest" actually is. The study of history is not simply glorified celebrity gossip. If anything, the physical wills of currently famous people could be considered more expendable as it is likely that their contents are so widely diffused as to be relatively "safe", whereas the wills of so-called "ordinary people" will, especially in aggregate, provide insights that have not yet been explored.

Question 10: Do you have any initial suggestions on the criteria which should be adopted for identifying famous/historic figures whose original paper will document should be preserved permanently?

Abandon this entire lamentable plan. As previously discussed, you do not and cannot know who will be considered "famous" in the future, and fame is a profoundly flawed criterion of historical significance.

Question 11: Do you agree that the Probate Registries should only permanently retain wills and codicils from the documents submitted in support of a probate application? Please explain, if setting out the case for retention of any other documents.

No, all the documents should be preserved indefinitely.

Question 12: Do you agree that we have correctly identified the range and extent of the equalities impacts under each of these proposals set out in this consultation? Please give reasons and supply evidence of further equalities impacts as appropriate.

No. You appear to have neglected equalities impacts entirely. As discussed, in your drive to prioritise "famous people", your plan will certainly prioritise the white, wealthy and mostly the male, as your "Charles Dickens, Charles Darwin and Princess Diana" examples amply indicate. This plan will create a two-tier system where evidence of the lives of the privileged is carefully preserved while information regarding people of colour, women, the working class and other disadvantaged groups is disproportionately abandoned to digital decay and eventual loss. Current and future historians from, or specialising in the history of minority groups will be especially impoverished by this.  

[genderqueerdykes]

I still feel really iffy about transandrophobia (a bit less so after your explanation) but the main thing confusing me is why is it considered the intersection of being a man + being trans when it stems from transphobia and misogyny? It can’t really stem from misandry because misandry is systematically not a thing. I’m starting to understand it a bit but i’m still SUPER confused. I also feel really bad that So Many ppl who believe in transandrophobia are really rude to transfems.

hello there. i hope i can explain things that help make sense of it a bit better. i appreciate you coming back to ask more. please note that i'm saying this to be productive and not to hurt your feelings or anything. i just need to point out some key things that i see repeated often in these conversations

it's not "believing" that transandrophobia exists, it is acknowledging that it exists. this is not a religion. this is much like gravity in that this form of oppression doesn't cease to exist just because someone doesn't believe in it. it's not like god, belief is not necessary. it will happen regardless of whether or not you believe it's happening

i really need you to understand that transmascs and trans men are PEOPLE above all else and talking over them and telling them they don't actually know what they're going through and need someone else to explain it for them is so fucking horrible. please don't do that to an entire group of people. transmascs and trans men ARE reliable narrators on their own lived experiences. why is it okay to freak the fuck out when trans men speak for trans women, but trans women are the only ones we can listen to when it comes to trans manhood? please consider how screwed up this double standard is. if you refuse to listen to trans men talk about trans womanhood, do the same when trans women talk like they know everything about trans manhood.

why is it considered the intersection of being a man + being trans when it stems from transphobia and misogyny?

because that's not what it refers to! trans men and transmascs experience misogyny but they're not using "transandrophobia" to mean "misogyny 2". it's specifically because they are trans MEN and nothing else. we did not reinvent misogyny, this is a specific experience that we face that people can learn about if they just listen to us talk about it!

transandrophobia is a specific type of transphobia that is directed towards trans men and mascs that is specifically directed at them because they are trans MEN and trans MASCS. it's NOT stock standard transphobia, transmascs & trans men are specifically being targeted because they are trans MEN. being told that you're "not a real man" because you're trans isn't misogyny. being told you're "not really a gay guy" because you're trans isn't misogyny. mocking trans men for not having deep enough voices or enough facial hair to pass isn't misogyny. telling trans men they're not real men because they don't have penises isn't misogyny. telling them they're not real men because they like women's clothing isn't misogyny. telling them they're not real men because they work in a female dominated field isn't misogyny.

mocking trans men who can't grow body hair for not "being real men" isn't misogyny. telling them they're not real men because they have feminine interests isn't misogyny. telling them they're too short to be a man isn't misogyny. telling them their face or body isn't masculine enough to be a man isn't misogyny. trans men getting misgendered for their voices isn't misogyny. getting called a "tranny dyke" or a "cunt boy" when someone finds out a trans man is trans isn't misogyny... all of these things are transandrophobia. these no longer have anything to do with being perceived as a woman, these have to do with being perceived/attempting to be perceived as a man/masc.

trans men are affected by misogyny too, but it's not the same as transandrophobia. as a matter of fact, telling a trans man that they're experiencing misogyny when they aren't IS transandrophobia..

I also feel really bad that So Many ppl who believe in transandrophobia are really rude to transfems.

i'm going to lay it down painfully easily for you, but when you say things like that, it really comes across as virtue signalling. i'm going to be blatantly honest with you here. it really sounds like you're trying to suck up to transfems for brownie points by saying trans men don't suffer any forms of oppression at all and that people who acknowledge that transandrophobia exist are mostly rude transmisogynistic assholes. you're participating in silencing trans men & transmascs for the sake of trying to look more Trans Friendly to transfems and trans women and we can see it for what it is. please stop. this isn't flattering. it scares transfems and trans women when you do this because we don't know when you'll turn that hatred, malice and ignorance toward us whenever the narrative shifts again. this does not make us feel safe around you.

acknowledging that transandrophobia exists doesn't mean someone is attacking trans women and trans fems. like i'm sick and tired of the "people who believe in transandrophobia are really mean to transfems" shit. it's not true! this is way over exaggerated for the sake of making trans men and mascs look bad. i cannot stress how much this is NOT true for every single person who acknowledges that transandrophobia exists. i have a lot of friends who acknowledge that transandrophobia exists, trans men, transmascs, and all other kinds of genders, including trans women and transfems! you know how many of them are ACTUALLY rude to or attack trans women?

0. none. i'm not saying those people don't exist but they are NOT the norm. hell, there are literally trans women who acknowledge transandrophobia exist. the world is not as tiny as you've been made to feel it seems. there ARE shitty people out there who acknowledge that transandrophobia exists, but it's not the norm. it's not the vast majority of us. we have to stop having this knee jerk reaction of "trans woman = defenseless pure cant ever hurt anyone constant victim always hurt by men no matter what the context is" and "trans man = evil because man subhuman deserves to die literally an attack to every and all trans women around them"

i would suggest actually reading the anons i get about transandrophobia if you want to learn more about it! please stop listening to people who AREN'T trans men and transmascs when it comes to what kinds of oppression they face. nobody else actually knows what they go through. please actually listen to THEM. it's not helping trans women by refusing to listen to literally every other kind of trans person. it's not alleviating trans women of the oppression we face to deny that other people can be oppressed, too.

also whether or not ppl wanna accept it, transmascs and trans men are human and you really, really do need to care about that. like genuinely. please just open your heart and care about transmascs and trans men in a way that doesn't involve throwing them under the bus to attempt to look better to transfems. it's not helping anyone. put your ego down for a good few hours and actually listen to other people- and yes, i really do mean more than just trans women. listening to trans women is great. we appreciate it. but stop silencing other people in order to do that. it's not necessary.

[casscainmainly]

Gender and Sexuality in Batgirl (2000)

While Kelley Puckett's opening run on Batgirl (2000) deals with Cass experiencing human connections and human life outside of fighting, issue 37 onwards takes a hard turn into gendered experiences. For sure there's some problematic elements (Cass gets sexualised a LOT more), but Horrocks' run does explore Cass' view on gender and romance in an interesting way. I'll be focusing on issues 37 - 57, essentially Horrocks' run but including guest writers (Gabrych, for instance, is our starting point). By the way I'm not a gender studies expert so feel free to disagree with any of these readings.

Riot Girls

Issue #38 (written by Gabrych) opens with this Batman conversation, which sets up Horrocks' run perfectly. Cass has never experienced a close female friendship (Babs is more mother/daughter) until Stephanie. Yet Bruce strikes a nerve here: she's not like you, and she never will be. He tells Cass something she already suspects - there's something she lacks that Stephanie has. (Bruce is, ironically, trying to say that Stephanie's the one lacking, but that's not what Cass hears).

This leads into the iconic Steph-Cass conversation:

Steph reveals she's had a baby, and this is Cass' reaction. She realises how much she doesn't understand about her body, romance, and gender in general. Stephanie has "finally beat [her] at something." She has experienced 'girlhood' in ways Cass can only dream of.

At the end of the issue, Stephanie asks if Cass thinks "he's right" (referring to Bruce), and Cass says yes. By siding with the male perspective (Bruce, or the he), Cass falls out with Stephanie, losing her first female friend. The whole of Horrocks' run should be understood in the context of this issue, with Cass searching for an understanding of her gender/sexuality.

The Superboy Saga

When Babs takes her on vacation, she makes Cass put on a bikini. Cass ends up meeting Superboy, getting grossed out, and delivering this excellent speech. It's Cass' first proper encounter with the male gaze, and it's especially disquieting for her because a) she knows the power of vision and b) she's brushing up against sexism and systemic injustice, something she hasn't really experienced before. She's encountering a power that can't be defeated with fists, and she is struggling to understand it.

She eventually does kiss Conner, and decides to take a trip to Metropolis. The decision occurs after this panel. Cass' desire to be with Conner stems from her desire to understand these feelings of passion, to want/need and be wanted/needed by others. The top panel here is interesting, too; she sees sexism playing out with other people ("check me out, girls!" / "Jerk."). Her anguished expression indicates she's having trouble reconciling the harmful forms of passion (top panel) with the sweeter forms of love (bottom panel).

At the end of the Superboy saga, Cass learns to distinguish between her romantic and platonic feelings. This taking place after the fallout with Stephanie (who explicitly repudiated her friendship) makes this extra intriguing - Cass calls the creature they're fighting "lonely," clearly meant to show insight into herself. Without Steph, she felt 'lonely', thus sort of falling into this relationship with Conner. Conner, however, is unable to fulfil that loneliness. Which leads us to...

Bruce Wayne Strikes Again

I noted in my other post how Bruce is super disapproving of Cass' love life. While it's hilarious, it genuinely impacts Cass' ability to express her sexuality freely. Here, Bruce pits Cass' sexuality against Batgirl; he implies that these attempts to understand herself harm her vigilante career. The way Cass responds ("I want to. I need to") is strikingly similar to the passions panel ("I want you. I need you"). Instead of being directed to another person, Cass directs her passions to Batgirl as a career. She's sliding back into her early mindset where Batgirl was all she was.

Again, another contrast between her and Stephanie: Stephanie fought for recognition in the suit, but Cass has to fight for an identity outside of it.

The Tai'Darshan Tale

But the real motivator for Cass' sexual awakening is, of course, Tai'Darshan, the semi-racist-caricature metahuman terrorist from Tarakstan. He flirts with Cass constantly, and makes a lot of gendered references ("easy, girl," "I don't understand why a woman like you," he calls her "beautiful") (#39, #40). He is the first significant character to take an interest in Cass as a girl, and without his flirting Cass probably wouldn't have kissed Conner (she kisses him after fighting Tai'Darshan twice).

Tai'Darshan does a big tornado thing and Bruce, intent on not letting him kill, knocks him aside, killing him. I'm low-key mad about this plot point, but that's okay 'cause so is Cass! In an echo of the Steph-Cass situation above, Bruce entirely disapproves of Tai'Darshan, but Cass likes him. Unlike with Stephanie, however, Cass doesn't side with Bruce. Instead, she keeps her feelings "secret" from Batman. It's the start of their relationship fracturing, as well as the start of Cass prioritising her own feelings and self-development over Bruce's perception of her.

No Soul

After all of this boy drama Cass understands romance a bit better, but is still in the dark about her gender. When a woman tells her she has "no soul," Cass goes to Barbara, who tells her the following:

Barbara connects 'soul' with Batgirl and femininity. Cass believes her, putting on Barbara's old suit (which one panel associates with "girl power!") and heading into the streets. What's interesting is that to achieve girlhood, Cass discards her suit in favour of Barbara's. Once again, there's this belief she's not 'feminine enough'; she's not like other girls, and she never will be.

But the suit obviously doesn't match Cass' fighting style, and in the end Cass returns to her old one. We get this great speech from Babs:

Cass is asleep here, but I do think she's learning that there's no 'right way' to be a girl - that she doesn't have to be Stephanie or Conner's girlfriend or Batgirl or Barbara, but just Cass.

The Dick Debacle

Cass gets hit with a drug called 'Soul' and has these hallucinations. This mostly male group sexualises her, criticises her for being sexual, calls her ugly, calls her hot; Cass is visualising the overwhelming contradictory standards applied to women everywhere, a compression of all her experiences thus far. Even Babs has fallen victim to pushing Cass towards stereotypically feminine experiences, and Cass' anguish is not so much at these people but at the patriarchy she's finally beginning to understand.

Dick, in particular, seems to represent this anger:

Finding out Dick broke Babs' heart seems to be the final straw. Here, her hallucinations paint her rage as feminine; the devil repeatedly calls her "girl," and Soul is being peddled by an all-female group who were 'tired of being girlfriends'. Then Cass kicks Dick out a window.

The Dick incident represents a culmination of her negative gendered experiences, beginning from her fallout with Steph and ending with another one of her close female companions (Babs) being hurt by a man.

Fallout

In the final issue before War Games, Cass essentially loses both Barbara and Steph (after making up with her and seeing her as Robin). I just like the parallel between Cass looking at Barbara as she leaves, and Stephanie looking at Cass - in a way, this is the most 'like' Stephanie Cass ever gets.

There isn't really a satisfactory conclusion to the explorations of gender or sexuality in Horrocks' run, or even in Gabrych's after. I think there's a lot to explore and I hope whenever Cass gets her next solo they look into all this a little further!

[kantocamping]

Kichijiro. He/Him. 40s. Experienced pokemon trainer and studying ornithologist. Currently making a living selling/trading pokemon professionally; please inquire if you're looking for a pokemon native to Kanto, Johto, Hoenn, or Sinnoh.

I don't do competitive battling anymore, but I did in the past (non-circuit) so I may speak on the subject now and again. I'm also living in an RV for work purposes (no, I don't need help, I'm not homeless, I could buy a house if I wanted) and will likely also post about that from time to time. I don't care if you find it boring.

Please ask me about ornithology and my current research projects in Kantonian farfetch'd and its possible evolution.

My current team consists of pidgeot, noctowl, psyduck, delibird, farfetch'd, and rowlet. Feel free to ask about them as well.

// ooc

hiiii <3 my name is kristopher!! he/him + 22 :] i'm an enviro science/agriculture student, avid birder, and passionate hiker + camper!! please keep in mind that i'm a white american trying to portray a japanese man as best i can; feel free to let me know if i get anything wrong or do anything insensitive!!

i also run @pikachuwanted (meowth)

the pokemon lore i go with is based on a mixture of the games, anime, and comics, alongside my own headcanons that i've come up with over the years!! i'm totally okay with people interacting who have differing and even totally contradicting hcs to my own!! it's all in good fun.

that said, generally some baseline 'rules' (and i use the word loosely) that'll likely come up often enough i go with are:

pokemon are typically more intelligent than real animals and are treated as such. they have an understanding of human concepts that real animals don't, and can even communicate now and again. however, even humanoid pokemon still have animalistic behaviors, since they're not humans.

while multiple universes do exist, kichijiro is generally unaware of and skeptical about this concept. most direct references to this will be glossed over and not taken seriously by him. i generally just don't really like storylines like this and probably won't engage in them.

legendary pokemon are provably real, but rarely seen, and never documented as being captured by trainers. i won't ignore characters that have legendaries, but this won't be referenced outside of direct interactions! pseudo-legendaries are just considered to be very rare.

team rocket (which kichi is totally not in) is generally a more realistic crime syndicate that does genuinely awful shit aside from just stealing pokemon.

please keep the following in mind when interacting with me!

content warning: this blog may at any time contain themes of smoking, drinking, alcoholism/drug use, suicidal thoughts, pokemon death/abuse, veterinary practices, organized crime, guns, and non-canon typical violence. bolded topics will always be tagged! please let me know if you want anything else to specifically be tagged.

pelipper mail is on, but please don't go crazy with it, i'll just ignore it if i don't know what to say or think it's not going to be fun for me. magic anons are off.

fallers and sentient pokemon are fine to interact, but i'd rather not interact with eebies specifically

i'm totally down to write literate threads if anyone wants! i love long-form writing and am more than happy to plot something out. all of these will either be on discord or @finefeatheredfoes

kichijiro is not a nice man! he's trying to be better, but he's a generally rude person who's done a lot of bad things in his life and has been in rough circles for over 20 years. he might be mean, but this doesn't reflect my thoughts on you/your character at all!! if this upsets you, please just let me know.

related, but if you have ANY issues with me please please PLEASE bring them up to me in dms!!! i'm always willing to talk things out, and i'll never freak out on you or whatever :]

[felixcloud6288]

Dungeon Meshi Chapter 91

The title image reminds me of the idiom "Catching the tiger by the tail". It refers to someone finding themselves in a situation that's far worse than they expected but must proceed.

Laios and the lion face off this chapter, and they both end up dealing with something far more than what they expect.

Between writing the last chapter's post and now, I noticed most but not all the demon hands have five fingers.

Oh. The demon is still an infinite presence even though it's currently in a mortal shell. Okay then.

The first thing the demon ever did in this world was offer itself as food to fulfill an animal's desire to eat. And it gradually learned what forms each creature finds more desirable and would take those forms so it was more likely to be eaten.

Now that the demon's plan has succeeded, it's falling back on that old behaviour. Laios is hungry and the demon happens to be the ideal form to feed him. The demon is content to just let Laios eat him until he's full.

Love Senshi's reaction to all this. He's definitely stressed out like the others, but he understands he can't do anything about the situation. So he's just washing the dishes to give himself a bit of normalcy while the apocalypse and this battle between godly beings happens around him.

The demon only began attacking Laios when he almost attacked Chilchuck. It's still bound by its order to keep Laios's companions safe. The demon concluded that it needs to kill Laios to keep that order. In a way, maybe the demon is still unable to do anything without someone giving it a command.

In chapter 88, I brought up how Demon Laios uses a different grip when two-handing Laios's sword. This is also true when they hold their swords to perform a downward thrust. Laios holds his sword with his right hand above his left.

The demon instead holds the sword with its left hand above its right.

This fight looks exactly like what any fight with an ant army is like. Laios is far stronger against one instance of the demon. The problem is that he's fighting an infinite swarm. They're even using various ant-like tactics such as stinging him from the outside and crawling into any potential body cavities to attack internally.

At this point I have to ask "Is there anything not currently under the waterwalk effect?"

What's the opposite of the "Be careful what you wish for" trope? The way it normally works is the person says "I wish for the thing" and after the genie grants it, the person's all "I shouldn't have wished for the thing" and the genie is all "Haha, foolish mortal! You should have considered the nature and consequences of your wish."

The demon is experiencing the opposite. Laios was all "I wish for the thing" and the demon granted it. But now the demon is all "I shouldn't have granted the thing" and Laios is all "Haha, foolish demon! You should have considered the nature and consequences of my wish."

When the party was swallowed by the lion, they entered a space filled with the bones and ruins of the world it destroyed. When the lion forced its way into Laios, it found itself in a space where Laios sat atop a mountain of the bodies he had just eaten.

I think this space represents everything the given being has consumed to keep itself alive. Eating is the exclusive privilege of the living. No matter what you are, to live means to stand over a mountain of the bodies you had to eat to survive.

But the demon's space is the opposite of this. It doesn't need to eat to sustain itself. Instead, the space inside it was full of the things it never got to eat. What allows it to keep going is not what it has eaten, but rather what it regrets never getting to eat. Even though its plan succeeded, the demon won't be satisfied because the desires of the living are not what kept it going.

The "can eat and digest desires" note was buried in the piles of text from last chapter. But it was partially out of frame. There's just enough there that it could be possible to figure out the full note if you're willing to compare words.

And no. There's no way Laios planned to do this. He's just bumbling about and everyone got super lucky the lion granted exactly what Laios wanted without ever confirming what Laios wished for and it just so happens that Laios's monster design included the one thing that could beat the demon.

I think the demon's ultimate desire is to be part of this world. It understands that creatures eat and are eaten, but it doesn't quite understand the true nature of eating and being eaten since it is an infinite being that can never be fully consumed and it eats something that doesn't actually sate it.

Laios may have actually granted the demon's wish at this moment. The demon only acts to fulfill others' wishes. Even its plan to swallow the world is ultimately acting to fulfill other people's wishes. But this moment where it's trying to stop Laios from eating its desire is the first moment the demon is truly doing something solely for itself. It realized it is in danger and tried to save itself.

This infinite being felt a sense of mortality as something tried to consume it. It fought with the desire to save itself. And then it was overpowered and consumed.

This is such an amazing image. It looks like a painting you'd see in a renaissance art museum. It is the depiction of a great moment in a myth. Two beings are in conflict. Both are human and not human; monster and not monster. One is a monster that ate humans and gained a human mind to become closer to them. The other is a human that ate monsters and gained a monster form to become closer with them. Which is more human? Which is more monster? There is no way to truly draw that distinction.

And when all humans and all monsters had been eaten and they stood atop a mountain of corpses left behind by their consumption, there was nothing left to eat but each other.

That description is me exaggerating a lot but I really just wanted to get across how powerful and amazing that image felt to me.

When the lion noticed its desires were gone, it mourned how its "self" was disappearing. That is what truly happens when one is eaten. The "self" is killed and what remains becomes part of something else.

Anyway, that fight ends in the closest possible equivalent to a mutual kill as both of them will spend the rest of their existence robbed of what they want.

Laios is worried this means Falin can't be resurrected. But honestly, it probably means Laios isn't going to get to stay a monster.

When the demon first came to this world, it observed how every creature desired to eat. It would give itself to them to satisfy that desire, but they would always become hungry again. The demon decided to eat something so it could understand why everything eats even though that doesn't permanently satisfy their hunger.

The demon is an infinite being. It wasn't able to truly understand the reason behind eating because its appetite was as infinite as the rest of it. In the end, it concluded that starving was the point because it never felt the satisfaction of being full.

Also, yep. Izutsumi's actions led to the lion's defeat.

Izutsumi attacks "Laios" -> The party realizes he's a fake -> They tell everyone to stop him -> The lion summons Monster Laios -> Monster Laios eats the lion's desires -> The lion is defeated

back

[aromanticmina]

The 5 common questions people have about aplatonics

so, I've seen so many blogs on the aplatonic tag having to answer the same questions over and over again, so I figured I could make a list so that people can have an easier time getting to the answers they are looking for! (and apl people can just link back to this post if they're asked one of this questions, if they want to)

What does aplatonic mean?

Aplatonic is a term that refers to the lack of (or experiencing little) platonic attraction or platonic love, it can also mean having trouble forming platonic relationships due to trauma or being neurodivergent.

2. Does that mean aplatonic people don't have friends?

Not necessarily, there are aplatonic people who don't (desire to) have friends or wouldn't label any relationship they have as friendship (even though, to an outsider, some would seem as one), for numbers of reasons.

However, there are some aplatonic people who do have friends, but they're not really close to them/don't feel love for them.

love and care are different things, you can care for someone and want the best for them even when you're not close enough to them to love them.

3. But if aplatonic people don't have friends, does that mean they don't socialize with anyone?

Nope! friendships aren't the only way you can socialize with people. Family, classmates, coworkers, lovers, neighbors, those are all people you have have nice conversations with!

4. Are all aplatonics also aromantic?

Not all of them, while it's true that there are a lot of people who are both aro and apl (see: me), there are aplatonics who are alloromantic (feel romantic attraction) or just don't label their romantic orientation.

(fun fact, the original coiner of the aplatonic label is an alloromantic asexual!)

5. Are all aplatonics also loveless?

Again, not all of them, there is a great overlap between the aplatonic and loveless community (shout out to my loveless apls!), but not all aplatonics identify as loveless.

Some love in a romantic way, familiar way, alterous way (if you don't know what alterous attraction is, I recommend looking it up!) or just in a completely unique but ultimately queer way (hi, it's me, I'm lovequeer).

I still don't really get it...

That's okay, you don't have to understand something to respect it, if you're still curious and want to learn more about us, there are multiple blogs on the #aplatonic tag sharing their different experiences with aplatonicism, you just have to know where to look!

And remember! the Aspec includes the aplatonic spectrum, you can't say you support aspecs if you don't support aplatonic people as well!

[p-3-pper]

k so slay the princess is rotting my brain but currently one big thought is chilling in my brain, and like- hear me out (sorry if my wording doesn't convey my thoughts well skskfjdjg)

but I don't think the damsel is entirely as shallow as some may see her as. HEAR ME OUT- compared to the other princesses, yes, she definitely more shallow. and she is also (at least when looking at deconstructed) poking fun at those trying to have an easy and work free romance route where the princess does whatever you like and loves you so, so much. i'm not saying she's supremely deep and that no one understands her but me, but I also don't think she exists solely to mock players with absolutely nothing to say about the nature of human permanence either.

does that make sense? more thoughts below- they're a bit disjointed though so warning ^^;

I personally think the damsel can also represent a very real form love, so to speak.

gimme a min to explain. I think what initially led me to this is a line from the narrator equating the smitten and the damsel to acting like teenagers in love. and that line sorta shifted my perspective a bit on her a little? seeing that kinda made me go "ohhhhhhh makes sense" like it really did remind me of two kids who don't entirely get what dating entails but still want to be together, and given the endgame sequence the damsel's section just kinda cemented this mindset for me.

for clarification the damsel has two(?) bits of dialog depending on whether she's deconstructed or not. If she isn't she says something along the lines of (iirc) "you had a desire and you set that desire free/not caring about what it took or costed you in the process" annnd?? like that's kinda wholesome to me?

like the damsel's love with the player isn't nearly as in depth, complicated, or complete as say the thorn, but it's a passionate love. it's also a naive love. the sort of love you'd find with, well, teenagers having a crush. of course when people get older they see those old crushes as frivolous and flat, but to the people experiencing them in the moment, it's real! it's serious! they were still willing to risk a lot just to be together. and at least at the start, you're willing to be killed by the princess if it means she's safe after having a battle of control against the narrator. it just reads as very human to me. they truly felt that their love could conquer anything.

I feel the thorn is a more 'adult' version of the damsel. it's that passionate love taking on a more mature form. it has more hardships to go through and way more pitfalls and mistakes that one can make compared to the more childish love like the damsel's. there's less theatrics and fanfare, and to me it feels more somber and quiet. it's a contrast between the high stakes emotion filled damsel, and the more intimate, tense, and self-aware thorn. ultimately in the end for both of them, they come to a realization that love is a powerful tool almost in a way that mirror each other.

some of the same occurrences leading up to the route are also shared between the two. like having the princess stab you in the prior route. I also think it's worth noting that in the thorn, the thistles can be seen as/can be referred to a prison of her own making. something she can leave if she was willing to make the effort to do so. it's similar to the damsel's shackles being easily slipped off her wrist. she could free herself.

also by extension, say what you will about the smitten but he loves the princess no matter what form she takes. even when she kills him he still adores her. he is content with being cooked alive by the princess if that's what she wants. i think he's a lot like the damsel in that sense. whatever she wants, she will have. if the damsel is molded to love the player, the smitten is absolutely molded to love the princess in the same way.

[str4wberrysw4n]

𝐍𝐎 𝐌𝐀𝐍𝐈𝐅𝐄𝐒𝐓𝐀𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍 𝐈𝐒 𝐒𝐌𝐀𝐋𝐋 (๑·̀ㅂ·́)و✧

yesterday, my teacher said that we were gonna play a Kahoot! and the top 5 would be able to get munchkins as a prize. Im not sure if I've mentioned this on my blog before but i LOVE sweet things!! so i was determined to do well in this Kahoot.

every time a question came up and i clicked an answer, I basically just told myself "it's right" and pushed back any doubt I had in mind. long story short, i ended up getting 5th place and was called up to get a munchkin. however, as i walked back to my desk, i was proud of myself only for my mind to undermine it immediately by saying

"it's just a small manifestation"

and im here to tell u... THERE'S NO SUCH THINGGG!!

oh my gosh. so many people wonder why their manifestations take incredibly long to form in the 3d,but when they DO manifest something small, they immediately diminish their accomplishments bcuz it's not the "main thing" they want. they're so focused on getting this "big" manifestation, which actually ends up with them sabotaging themselves. why?

first of all, i want to explain why "small" manifestations should be celebrated. imagine: maybe u manifested a top. nothing more, nothing less. but that in it's own right is an incredible feat. u have quite literally imagined something in ur head and watched it project into the physical world due to the power that u hold. a lot of people aren't able to affirm, persist, etc. And simply give up when they don't immediately see results. a result, considered small in the eyes of ur humanity, is a representation of u taking back ur reality and controlling the 4d. which is why i think seperating them into groups of "small" or "big" is, in my opinion, keeping u trapped in the 3d.

in the physical realm that we reside in, we constantly attempt to weigh our options to see which one is better. for example, if u asked the average person, "is billions of dollars more important than a shirt", they would obviously laugh at you and think you're joking or something. It obviously is, at least in the 3d. However, I believe that this weighing and difference in values should not be applied to manifesting. imagine like I said, u manifested a shirt. that's great, BUT, ur trying to manifest a billion dollars -- and while ur kind of grateful for the shirt, u instead focus on how you DIDN'T get the money. because of the values that u have been taught in the 3d, u believe that one less important than the other. when u apply this belief, ur basically telling urself that u have some sort of "low power level" instead of seeing it as proof of ur great potential. it shows that you're still attached to the 3d and what it presents to u, rather than accepting the 4d and being truly grateful that its started to pierce through ur reality.

also, just saying -- i see ppl online call certain manifestations "small", and while i don't agree with it, i understand why they could possibly refer to it as that. looking at where they are in their journey and the things they are "receiving", there's a chance that manifesting a shirt is pretty "small" compared to the things that they've manifested before. this is mostly an issue for like NEW manifestors, like they just started making subliminal playlists a week ago. its a problem i definitely ran into and i feel like it could hold back ur progress. luckily, i was able to understand that even if i called it "small", that it wasn't actually that way.

to sum it up, there isn't anything as a small manifestation, and genuinely considering one more important than the other can limit ur potential as a manifestor!!

once again, this was something i experienced so i wanted to post this for anyone that might need some insight! this is all my opinion btw. happy manifesting!! ヾ(◍°∇°◍)ﾉﾞ

[octagava]

Recently, I've been thinking about making a Yuu OC (not a Yuusona since I don't personally project myself onto the MC, haha). But I've started to think about what concept to use for it, and I came to the conclusion that the best one could actually be Beauty and the Beast.

I will be referring to the MC Yuu in this post with they/them pronouns, and this includes the loop theory somewhat.

The Core Concept: In Beauty and the Beast, the enchanted rose symbolizes a curse tied to time: the rose wilts as time runs out, representing a curse that can only be broken when someone learns to love and be loved in return. (This can be interpreted in TWST as Yuu and others dealing with the other characters' traumas.) The prince (and his kingdom) must endure the curse, with time running out, represented by the petals of the rose falling one by one. Similarly, Yuu’s curse could involve being part of the repeating time loop that seems to be happening, always experiencing resets and a slow, inevitable progression toward breaking the curse, but never fully remembering or understanding why they are trapped.

Yuu's significance in the story is essentially hidden from the viewers as well, not being the prince (or the hero, per se), but still very essential to breaking the curse altogether. Yuu would be constantly resetting time (or it being reset by someone else), playing a seemingly insignificant BUT essential role in the other characters' lives, (just like the rose is tied to the Beast’s fate), but unaware of how they’re part of the larger narrative.

Flower of Evil: In the Beauty and the Beast story, the rose isn't immediately understood to be the key to breaking the curse; it's, however, insignificant much later. Similarly, Yuu doesn't seem to be the focus in the story nearly at all, mostly being in the background and letting the other cast members shine. However, they are not insignificant, as their small actions, the pure fact that they're in the story, change the outcome.

Time Loop and Cyclical Fate: The key to the curse in Beauty and the Beast is time: the petals of the rose fall one by one, symbolizing how the curse will soon become irreversible unless the Beast learns to love. This is exactly what connects the time loop into the story: being stuck in an endless cycle with no clear way of getting out. Constantly trying to undo a tragedy or break the curse without knowing how.

Grim's Role: In Beauty and the Beast, the Beast is cursed due to his arrogance and emotional distance from others. In Twisted Wonderland, Grim exhibits similar traits in his pride, independence, and reluctance to form deep bonds. From the beginning, Grim presents himself as someone who values self-sufficiency and is proud of his identity as a cat-like creature with a fiery, chaotic personality. He doesn't want to appear weak or dependent on others, which mirrors the Beast's own fears of vulnerability.

One key difference, though, is that in Twisted Wonderland, Grim doesn't start off arrogant in the same way as the Beast. Instead, his insecurities stem from his lack of magic (I say "lack of magic" as he seems to only be able to perform some form of fire-based magic) and his mysterious background. He’s often seen as an outsider because he doesn’t fit in with the rest of the students at Night Raven College. His lack of magic makes him feel inferior, much like how the Beast initially feels weak and powerless in his own kingdom. The way Grim compensates for this sense of inadequacy is through his chaotic behavior, boasting about his non-existent magical power and getting himself into trouble.

Struggle with Identity: Grim’s identity crisis is a key part of his character arc. In Twisted Wonderland, Grim doesn’t remember much of his past or how he came to be. He's somewhat isolated and disconnected from his history. Grim's struggle with not having magic is a constant source of self-doubt. Despite his fiery nature and potential (shown by his dragon-like features and the occasional display of destructive fire magic), he feels weaker than the other students who have proper magical abilities. This creates a divide between him and the rest of the students, much like the Beast’s own struggle with his appearance and cursed form.

Relationship with Yuu (The Beast Tamer and Its Beast): Grim's relationship with Yuu closely mirrors the Belle/Beast dynamic, but it plays out more gradually, reflecting Twisted Wonderland’s tone. Initially, Grim doesn’t respect Yuu much and sees them as someone to help him out of difficult situations (a henchman), like getting food or fulfilling tasks. His relationship with Yuu starts out as pragmatic, with Yuu merely being a means to an end.

However, as time passes, Grim begins to realize that Yuu’s presence is crucial to his growth, and above all, Grim begins to value Yuu’s presence as a friend. Grim’s usual chaotic behavior hides his insecurities, but Yuu, through their empathy and steadfastness, slowly builds a genuine bond with him. Grim’s reluctance to form a connection mirrors the Beast’s own struggle with opening up to Belle. While Grim’s pride initially prevents him from acknowledging the depth of this connection, it becomes evident over time that Yuu’s presence makes them a source of emotional support that Grim never knew he needed. This mirrors the Beast’s eventual realization that love and emotional connection are more powerful than pride or power.

The Inner Conflict and Fear of Abandonment: Grim’s behavior is often driven by an intense fear of abandonment and rejection. In Twisted Wonderland, Grim’s past is largely unknown, and it’s possible that he has experienced past traumas or abandonment, which drives his chaotic and self-sufficient behavior. This emotional vulnerability is something he hides behind his outward appearance of confidence and independence. Grim has a strong desire to be accepted, but his fear of rejection makes him push others away before they can hurt him.

Much like the Beast’s fear of being unloved, Grim’s reluctance to trust Yuu in the beginning stems from his insecurities. He fears that if he opens up, Yuu will realize that he’s not special or magical, and will eventually abandon him. This plays a significant role in his initial coldness toward Yuu and his chaotic behavior.

And as we see in the story, as it goes on, Grim learns to accept Yuu’s presence and care for them deeply. His emotional growth is slow, but the bond he forms with Yuu helps him out.

The Loyalty: Despite his pride and selfishness, Grim is fiercely loyal to Yuu, even when he doesn’t outwardly show it. He often complains about Yuu and is quick to criticize them, but his actions reveal his true feelings. Grim, however, consistently stays by Yuu’s side, assisting them in their trials, whether they’re fighting off enemies or navigating school events. Yuu is the one person Grim can count on, and while he tries to pretend otherwise, his loyalty deepens over time.

This mirrors the Beast’s loyalty to Belle, who helps him and his castle, even when he’s initially rude or ungrateful. Like the Beast, Grim’s emotional connection to Yuu grows because he learns to appreciate them for who they are, not for what they can do for him, but for the way they help him grow emotionally.

Grim as the Figure of "Beast": Grim fits into the role of the Beast in this concept in a way that Twisted Wonderland supports. He’s often seen as a chaotic troublemaker, misunderstood by the others and struggling with his emotional vulnerabilities. He’s also a creature that seems to have greater power than the story at the moment showcases or is able to reveal. His insecurities about his magic make him afraid to reveal his true self. His emotional volatility and fear of being abandoned lead him to push people away, making him initially similar to the Beast before his transformation.

[scretladyspider]

I want to talk about the definition of demisexuality and why I think in an allocentric world it leads to misunderstandings like this.

Quoted by Cluffalo tweet is about demisexuality. Tweet reads: “Can we stop making everything into an “orientation"?This is normal, healthy, female sexualityWanting to immediately sleep with someone because they're hot is not the default for women.”

Okay, so… demisexuality is “not experiencing sexual attraction unless a close bond is formed”. It was invented over a few years of discussions on AVEN forums about a sort of in-between ace experience, between asexual and allosexual. Graysexual came about around the same time.

The most common criticisms of demisexuality include that it was invented for a role play, that it’s “just normal”, that it’s “just how women are”, or that its especially puritan, assigning superiority to not liking or not having casual sex. And while all of these are worth a deep dive… I want to talk about how we define demisexuality, and why I think it’s both helpful but also leaves some pretty big holes in understanding that leads to posts like that original tweet.

When you’re explaining anything under the asexual spectrum, you generally have to assume that they’ve never heard of asexuality. It doesn’t matter if they are or aren’t ace and don’t know it when we’re told our whole lives that asexuality isn’t a possibility. As much as I don’t want to center the allosexual experience when discussing demisexuality (or anything ace), and I really, really don’t, it ends up being the inevitable reference point when talking about anything ace.

Actually, really understanding the definition of demisexuality requires understanding and accepting asexuality, the asexual spectrum, action not necessarily equating with attraction, arousal VS attraction, libido, and unpacking what we’re taught sexuality is or could be. Demisexuality requires all kinds of knowledge about asexuality to even begin to understand that there IS a difference between waiting to have sex with your partner and not experiencing any sexual attraction at all, to anyone, ever, until and unless a close bond forms, IF then.

The way the “no sexual attraction until a close bond is formed” definition of demisexuality is set up currently sounds like it’s describing building trust with someone before engaging in sex from an allosexual perspective.

In my experience, people can more easily accept that some people don’t experience sexual attraction than they can that some people might experience it, maybe, under select circumstances. That takes more unpacking allonormativity and amatanormativity.

But if you know about and understand asexuality, it’s not difficult to go from the “little to no sexual attraction” that we usually think of as “no sexual attraction” when we talk about asexuality to understanding where and how the “little to” specifically comes into that.

However! If you know what asexuality is, then the definition of demisexuality as we currently write it, as in the OP’s post, is perfectly adequate and can even be liberating, especially if you’ve been trying to figure out why you usually but don’t *always fit into “no sexual attraction”.

I’m tired of explaining over and over the same thing, trying to find new ways to do that. If I can be vulnerable a second, a lot of the time it feels pointless, like, “why am I even doing this?”

And I’m sure I’m not the only person talking about asexuality that feels that way.

Also a lot of the “demisexuality is just being a woman” narrative typically overlaps with transphobia, and folks who say this tend to attribute who they’re referring to as “just being a woman” to whiteness, which again circles everything back to purity culture.

I haven’t yet found a way to explain demisexuality without basically writing a book. Tbh I don’t know that there is a way to briefly and adequately explain demisexuality, as it rests on understanding asexuality, which I know from experience I can’t just assume is the audience. And I don’t really have any solutions or answers to this. I don’t have a new and quick demisexuality definition ready to go. As is, if you understand asexuality, it’s fine, but if you don’t, it’s like… yeah, I understand why people get confused. I used to too. Demisexuality is a real thing. But I am frustrated and tired by how it takes a PowerPoint or dissertation to explain— not just for myself, but any demisexual, because there’s so much around it you have to explain first.

So… those are just some thoughts. I don’t have a solution? I’ve been just thinking about all this for… a long time actually. I wish more people knew about and understood asexuality. it would help. Not just with this, but, this would be something it helped with.

But, yeah! Those were thoughts. I don’t know how to end this thread. Uhm. Okay bye thanks for reading have a nice day

if you liked this consider supporting me on Patreon

or check out my spotfund, relevant thru June 2024

[lamardeuse]

This is not a Wendy's, and my story is not your burger.

A note up front: the following does not refer to the serious issues of racism, anti-Blackness and white supremacy in fandom spaces, which deserves a much more nuanced discussion than a ridiculous food metaphor could ever hope to express. This is a general discussion of fandom standards around tagging and warnings.

Over the three – now nearly four – decades that I've been in fandom, I've seen a lot. I've seen a lot of foolishness, and a metric fuckton of toxicity, and even some good faith, honest debates about how we should conduct ourselves as we move through fannish spaces and interact with one another. So from the start, let me explain that this is not the old lady crabbing at the kids. None of this is particularly new, and fandom culture ebbs and flows. Heigh-ho, nonny nonny, the wheels roll on.

That said, we need to have a talk. Because some people may not be as experienced as the rest of us, and need to understand some fundamental truths about fandom that they may not have picked up, because no one reads Fanlore from top to bottom for fun. That's not inherently a concern. We all learn from one another – I've learned so much from younger people in fandom, particularly here on tumblr – but there are occasions when younger fans could also benefit from some knowledge flowing the other way.

First, fandom is vast. It was huge when I started in the Dark Ages, and it's increased exponentially in the last fifteen to twenty years, since “geek culture” has gone mainstream. That widening of the circle – and more importantly, the naked commercialization of it by media giants who smell our money like vampires in a blood bank – is both a blessing and a curse, because on the one hand, more people who love a thing means more love for everyone! On the other hand, though, I think it's unmoored us in some senses from the fundamental truth that fandom is unhinged, joyful obsession, the fulfilment of a need for communication, creative expression and connection, and most importantly – community.

Yes, fandom is – or should be, at its best – a community first and foremost. And just like any community, it's filled with individuals who form groups, subgroups and cliques. And none of those groups have ever, in the over half a century since the first Star Trek fan made Kirk and Spock fuck, agreed upon one single, overarching view of what 'community' means. Which means the minute you as a fan come striding up to another fan's little electronic nest on the AO3 or Youtube or tumblr demanding that standard X be applied to their fannish creation in the name of 'fandom courtesy' or 'fandom etiquette'? All the old ladies (gn) in fandom realize that you are desperately, painfully new*.

Does that mean that we shouldn't strive to be a community? Of course not. But I would argue that the single and only “rule” of that community is that we make an effort to treat each other, first and foremost, with kindness and grace, and the understanding that the person you are interacting with is not you. They're not even one of the fifty-two people you interact with on Discord who all agree to the same “rules of fandom” (newsflash: they probably don't). And if you come into their fannish space as a stranger demanding they cater to you, you are probably going to be in for a shock.

Commercialization complicates this issue, because I think one element that's new is that some of us have lost sight of the fact – or never learned – that fans do not place their creations in front of you like a server handing you a bag at a fast food drive thru window. They are not producing a commodity to be consumed for which you paid hard earned money that entitles you to certain rights, such as the right to complain if you ordered a burger with mayo and received mustard instead. You would certainly have a right to demand compensation if you're allergic to mustard and had to go to the hospital as a result.

Fandom is more like a potluck, a gigantic potluck with literally millions of dishes. At some tables, there are agreed upon warnings for certain allergens, but others are not required to be mentioned and if you have an allergy, you will need to ask directly. At some tables, you are told that there may be allergens in any of the dishes and you proceed to eat them at your own risk. That risk and your assessment of it is, for better or worse, entirely your responsibility to manage. And your preferences – level of spice, aversion to certain textures and flavours – those are not allergies and there is no prior agreed upon standard to break down every possible element of a dish so that you will always be able to avoid any contact with the foods you personally don't like. There never has been, and there never will be.

The only thing you can be certain of is that on every single table, there are dishes that people have created for you for free with love, effort, experience and care. If you walk up to that table and take a bite and then politely turn down any more, that's fine. If you take a bite, spit it out and loudly tell that person that is not what you were expecting, you wouldn't have tried it if you'd known what it tasted like, and you are appalled that this person did not inform you of every single ingredient before you tried it? You, my friend, are not going to be welcome at the potluck.

Fandom is not a Wendy's. The stories, songs, costumes, artwork, edits that we put out into the world are not mass produced burgers made in a giant factory and shipped to restaurants where you can rest assured that the burger you eat in London will taste the same as the one in Dubuque. And no, the time you invested in reading a fic, watching a vid or contemplating a piece of artwork posted freely on the internet is not something you have the right to demand a refund on either, because again, fandom is not a fast food restaurant, and our interactions with one another in fannish spaces are not transactions. Every creation you choose to put in front of your eyeballs took that person time and energy, and they are putting that out in the world to make a connection with other human beings.

The next time you leave a comment, choose connection. It's easier than you think.

(*I'm going on good faith here and presuming most people who do this are relatively new to fandom. I'm not counting the people who think it's fine and dandy to hurl abuse at strangers for not obeying their standards – those people should be blocked and excluded on sight. I sincerely hope that they get help for the demons that are chasing them and telling them this is an acceptable way to live.)

[hakugin0]

So that new Levi card, woah boy(positive). I get how setting is slightly dubious but unfortunately my brain stopped at the ‘childish jealousy’ part and yeah childish was the perfect word he actually is throwing a bratty tantrum about MC talking about their time with Minhyeok WHILE THEY'RE NOT EVEN NEXT TO HIM. Levi, babey, you're not beating the Tsundere allegations.

Also the part about the sins was very interesting ‘cause it kinda puts in perspective why he feels like there's no King he's close to. Or at least that's my read on that part, all their sins have some positive parts while his is the only fully negative one so of course he couldn't feel close to them. (Personally I do think that part is his viewpoint on their sins and it would be interesting to see the other Kings’ too, Satan in particular since I feel like his sin and depressive mood swings do go hand in hand)

Now for the read more aka wiiiild speculations because he didn't come home in the reduced ten pull aka see you in 3 months bae when I have 500 pulls and you still refuse to show up(looking at you bath Satan), fair bit of character analysis and slight canon divergence(???) plus personal MC involvement.

GONNA PREFACE THIS BY WAVING NY ‘LEVI SIMP’ FLAG UP HIGH, IF THE CARD STORY WAS OFF PUTTING TO YOU OR YOU DISLIKE HIS CHARACTER IN GENERAL THEN MORE POWER TO YOU BUT PLEASE DO NOT INTERACT WITH THIS POST! IT AIN'T MEANT FOR YOU HOMIE (it's meant for me first and then anyone else who wants to witness my 3am insanity)

Aight? Aight! Here we go gamers

Gonna start this off by saying that when they dropped the first teaser for the card my expectations for the story were jelly Levi wants to replace minhyeok and thus enters MC's memories except surprise surprise it was actually some corn set in a high school (don't pretend those aren't a thing, we're all adults here, and with MC’s track record in that game it would not be surprising) in part because the story had to get spicy at some point.

Personal belief is that what we see in the prologue of Levi is the closest thing to a ‘normal’ him aka a version of him that got to experience a normal childhood and not have all the trauma of… ya know… HIS WHOLE PAST. The way he expected an attack when MC initially trips breaks me in a very particular way, he has never known peace, he expects everything to be some sort of attempt on his or his people’s life. The one time he wasn't as uptight ended up with him heavily injured (Bloodshed card).

There is also him ascertaining that they had different starting points. Now this could refer to a lot of things but to me one thing that does is put a definite line between them. To me it sounds like he's reasoning with himself that because of their very different lives they would be incompatible (combined with that thing about his sin being the only negative one it shows he always separates himself from people he would otherwise form bonds with)

Now he's still not nice, far from it, but he can be accommodating and look out for MC when he is not thinking 24/7 about possibly being attacked. Whether he reasons that it would endear himself more to them or out of pure instinct he looked out for MC, those were not Minhyeok’s actions he mimicked but his own.

So yeah, average Levi is horrendously bad at emotions and frankly probably the one who understands his own emotions towards a potential romantic partner(since tbh that is what MC is) the least. (This is a whole other can of brainworms about how aside from Solomon he probably has not been attached to anyone in that way until MC based on something he says in his H-Scene, but that can of worms shall be opened later) please get some therapists in Hell, clearly everyone would benefit from it.

There is also something impossibly endearing to me about seeing Levi in a high school setting even for a bit because that's not something he ever experienced and I wish his time exploring that part of MC and Minhyeok's past was a bit longer. I want to believe MC gets to ask him later in the story how he felt about it.

---

If you were only here for the character analysis then thanks for reading, have a lovely day/night/evening, we are going into wild speculation territory and some personal things regarding my MC Jin in that particular scenario.

tl;dr: After Jin's parents were killed she pretty much secluded herself in their home doing most of her studying through online courses and only showing up physically at school for a couple of days.

I choose to believe she was aware of stuff from the start but in that way you're aware you're in a dream while you sleep, she can tell things are a bit off but not fully what is wrong. She knows the person with her is not Minhyeok, she also knows who Leviathan is, but there's a certain disconnect when trying to piece it all together, but the further the dream goes the more she ‘realises’ and ‘awakens to the truth' if you will.

She cannot help but pity Levi’s situation even if she knows if she ever said that she'd probably get insta-hanged, so a part of her cannot help but wonder if he wanted to experience some normalcy for once. (She's not the brightest tool in the shed so the fact that he wants to replace Minhyeok would not pass by her singular braincell) (I love her I swear, being mean is my love language)

So I imagine after the whole dream thing is over and she next visits Hades she doesn't raise any questions about that event. She seems annoyingly unbothered and not curious at all. If anything this just makes Leviathan more angry because she can't be that unbothered after everything and pretend nothing happened, he should've been the only thing on her mind and yet she still sometimes mentions that detestable human. Oh how he should hang her for it. And then one day she has a conspicuously familiar candy in her mouth. “Was the experience at least a bit pleasant?” She's soft spoken anyway but she sounds almost apologetic. Why yes the experience was quite pleasant if Levi had to be honest but he'd never praise her openly… and then it hits him. She's not asking about that, she's asking about how he felt in a normal human high school.

When she gets no answer she stammers and starts speaking again, trying to fill the void. “I didn't exactly… go there often…” The pauses are plentiful and her shoulders droop almost in shame. “... so I imagine whatever you saw was rather lacklustre… aside from… my pathetic display-”

“It wasn't bad.”

A short sentence and it was enough to make the human girl perk up instantly. From anyone else that would be considered nigh an insult, but with Levi's temperament that was the highest praise she could hope for. By the time Jin was next to his desk after he'd beckoned her with a wave of his hand her visage had brightened significantly. ‘Stealing’ the lollipop from between her lips was ‘child’s play’ after that, the girl clearly took stunned to speak and becoming redder by the second.

“Yes, not bad at all.”

[galehowl]

Please tell us more about the demon lords in Aurora? Are they all alive and/or reincarnated? Do they have scars like beelzemon? Can you rank the demon lords from 1st place to 7th in madness(whos crazier because of the dark area's influence)Are they all sealed in the dark area or did they escape/broke out? Who is the leader?(In some stories Lucemon has been neutral, or Daemon and Barbamon are fighting for the leader position so they're kinda both in charge, etc)

So in short - they're the seven fallen of the ten Celestials that Huanglongmon created - the first Digimon, meant to be guardians of the nascent Digital World, a duty they carried out faithfully for thousands of years.

Most of them had different names back then, too.

Lucemon was the first one that came across what turned out to be a tiny tear in the dimensional fabric, leading to the Dark Area. After a series of events, him and the other six eventually got affected by it and turned on their creator and remaining brethren. The conflict that ensued had them nearly destroy the Digital World, but they were stopped by Huanglongmon who seemingly sacrificed themselves to close the massive rift that was engulfing the world, and banished the traitors to the Dark Area before sealing it off.

Decades turned to centuries, the Digital World healed and moved on, still watched over by the remaining two Celestials (Seraphimon and Cherubimon ) for a while, and the order of the Royal Knights. Events of the past turned into myth and legend, but all that time the fallen were slumbering in the Dark Area. A millennium later, the Rift was opened again - by humans.

They are very powerful entities, hence why they never got fully consumed by the Dark Area - they were able to not only survive in there for so long, but also created whole separate bubble dimensions around them in their slumber that they're in full control of - what humans would of course refer to as "circles of Hell" later on. As time went by, however, it did affect their bodies as well as minds, slowly warping their forms into something completely different. They are not fully stable as a result of being affected by the Area's energies for so long, and some of them consume energy from living beings to maintain their more angelic forms and to not decay, while others show permanent damage to their bodies, like Caedemon and his further evolutions when not in "energy-conserving" Child form.

And while no Digimon could ever fully control or understand the Dark Area and its chaotic energies, the Demon Lords, in a way, became part of it. What made them so dangerous wasn't just the pure power they possess when it comes to combat or damage they can do, but their connection to the Dark Area - they could open rifts and let the other dimension spill into the world, use its energy to corrupt both Digimon and humans, as well as whole locations, to name a few. Though different in power, any of them could bring about the end of both worlds if they really wanted to by unleashing the Dark Area upon them.

When Caedemon's data was analyzed, it showed that his Digicore had pretty much the same energy readings as those from the Dark Area.

Without going into too much detail here - they are also connected to the human world via the Dark Area, as that dimension serves as a sort of ( very bad ) crossroads for various other places. That is why they are associated with the concept of the Deadly Sins and embody those.

They are also able to influence humans in many ways similar to how theological demons do, and all of them exhibit an ability where they're able to tell when a human has truly bad intentions and desires.

None of them were affected by the Dark Area to the point of being "crazy", they have somewhat different opinions ( though none of them are good ) on mankind and Digimon, and a complex relationship with humans. They're ancient beings, cunning, experienced and wise in their own ways, and generally selfish. What paths they chose to follow in the end was fully their choices alone.

In the past, Lucemon was the de facto leader of the Celestials, but as they are now, none of them obey anyone, willingly at least.

At the time when the story takes place, some of them are still sealed and sleeping, while others were awakened. Lucemon and Barbamon, to name a few of those that eventually break out of the Dark Area.

They're not even the worst thing that can come out of that dimension, as everyone found out later lol.

[normal-thoughts-official]

transfem wyll is so fucking top tier though

like. okay. first of all, the obvious. wyll's forced transformation as a metaphor for the expectations forced on trans people's bodies. because nonconsensual body modification aside, the problem with wyll's transformation is and has always been the way this will make him be perceived by others, not the form itself. this works whether you have transfem wyll or transmasc wyll, but transfem wyll opens the door for transitioning as a form of healing from that transformation, too

wyll hasn't had any bodily autonomy in, well, pretty much ever, considering the pact was made when wyll was still a kid and it's heavily implied that ulder had a pretty military style of raising wyll (making wyll recite the four principles every morning and shit like that). mizora could, and would, change that body to her own will, pretty much whenever she wanted, as a natural extension of owning wyll's soul. wyll frequently refers to himself as mizora's puppet; a metaphor that directly evokes a lack of control over one's own body

so in that context, transitioning also means reclaiming herself. it's taking that body back and making it hers, to represent who she is, and now who mizora wants her to be or what other people expect someone with her body to be. that is always the case with transitioning, of course, but it also adds an extra layer of more obvious healing in that context

i also think wyll's core issues as a character work very well as an "egg" metaphor; wyll is a person who lives, first and foremost, for other people. he (and I'm using "he" here because I'm referring to wyll's canon character, not my hcs as a transfem wyll) is what he thinks he needs to be to be able to help others, what he thinks others want him to be. he is not himself. he is constantly playing a game of pretend, to be this picture perfect hero, more of an image (and a myth) than a person. if that isn't the pre-transition experience, i don't know what is

it also adds a new layer to why wyll has these issues in the first place. like, don't get me wrong, i think they make perfect sense in canon. but if she's transfem, then her willingness to endure pretty much anything for the sake of others makes even more sense. she's already constantly uncomfortable, constantly feeling out of place, constantly feeling like she's coming up short of what she needs to be, is expected to be, and feel and act like. so what's another discomfort, and another, and another, and another, and another? what's giving up one more part of herself when she doesn't feel like she gets to be "herself" anyway? what's constantly ignoring her own needs for the sake of prioritizing other people?

more of the same

and that's easy to do

and so she does it, and sacrifices every part of herself she has to give, again and again and again. wyll's fundamental disconnect with wyll's own personhood (as in being a person who has needs and flaws and is more than just a means to help other people) makes even more sense if she's an egg, and, in turn, also helps explain why she hasn't realized she's trans. she's never stopped to think about herself as a person with needs and wants, so why should she?

also, that sense of guilt trans people often have, of trying to compensate for their whole existence, feeling like they're gonna be "found out" and not even knowing as what, goes so well with wyll's obsession with moral perfection. if she is trying to compensate her innate sense of wrongness and unbelonging that she doesn't understand and can never quite get rid of, of course she would try to be the most picture perfect person ever. who can do no wrong, always puts others before herself, never makes any mistakes. again, wyll's reasons for acting like that make perfect sense in canon, but wyll as a transfem adds even more layers that i think are juicy to explore

and of course most of what i cited here is also experienced by transmascs, but i think wyll's issues are so much more fitting for a pre-transition experience. also, im a transmasc wyll enjoyer too. we should all kiss about it

in short: wyll's character as a metaphor for living pre-transition works exceedingly well, and that also means that transitioning can be an experience of healing from all the trauma wyll went through. transitioning is always healing, in my opinion, but in this case it can be a culmination of finally allowing herself to think about herself and her needs first, and taking her body for herself, which makes it more powerful

disclaimer: im not claiming these are universal trans or transfem experiences or that everyone deals with being trans this way. im just saying those are common feelings among trans people that can find reverberation in wyll's character