#so any discussion about this and related topics are usually ignored

[weird-gay-disaster]

I'd probably be more okay with being in LGBTQA+ places online if they weren't so predominantly white. And the only thing white people have ever done for me is annoy me.

[awryval]

death of an author, reclamation, and you

"We never are what we intend, or invent 'Cause I make little lies and then I pull them apart Think something dark's living down in my heart And if I wanted to die before I got old I should've started some years ago digging that hole"

Brand New. "At the Bottom." Daisy, 2009.

Brand New was among one of my favorite bands in high school, and I still listen to them today. Their music is important to me and shaped a big part of who I am. Their lyrics about being tortured, burnt-out, and choking on the weight of your own self-perceived flaws are relatable! Their compositions ooze with a level of self-hatred that can only be genuine. It's utterly depressing, and I adore it!

That's not not the full story, though. Jesse Lacey, the vocalist of Brand New, is a sexual predator. This informs everything about how the music of Brand New is. It's self-loathing for a very good reason. I love Brand New. I condemn Jesse Lacey. These two statements coexist. I used to be a part of the /r/brandnew subreddit, and when the allegations against Jesse Lacey came out in 2017, many redditors of that sub were quick to claim "death of the author." After all, the band had broken up immediately after the news broke, and they had also cancelled their tours. Currently, the people using that subreddit mostly talk about buying old BN merchandise and discuss what their favorite concert memories were. Jesse Lacey himself confirmed that the allegations against him were true, so there isn't much debate to be had. The subreddit serves as a monument for fans who still enjoy the music, and as a platform to speak about it with like-minded fans.

In my opinion, claiming "death of an author" is a slippery slope. We can't always claim that Miku is the creator of Minecraft. But often, we see that that is the response people have when a creator is outed to be problematic; "I still like the thing So-and-So made, so I will ignore that the creator exists!" The reason that this worked for Miku Minecraft is because, by the time that Notch was publicly making transphobic comments, he did not own Minecraft anymore. The joke is quite literally that he does not own the thing that people like. He sold it to Microsoft, so he doesn't get royalties from it anymore. You can play Minecraft devoid of supporting its original creator. This joke works so well because it is an actual case of the death of an author! That's great and all for Minecraft, but what about other instances? What happens when we claim "death of the creator" erroneously? And why are we so obsessed with this concept anyway?

So like, back to Brand New... they released their last album, Science Fiction, back in August 2017. The allegations came out later that same year. I own all of Brand New's discography physically, including their last release. I bought most of it off eBay when I was 15. I was not supporting them post-allegations. But that leaves me with a lingering question- what do I do with all these CDs that I still very much enjoy the music of? From how I see it, there are two firm camps on this topic:

Camp 1: You know about Lacey's crimes now and his music cannot be separated from his actions. Solution: Throw your CDs away.

Camp 2: It's something you bought without knowledge of Lacey's crimes, so you should enjoy it anyway. Death of an author! Solution: Continue as usual.

I'm not fond of either of these answers. They come off as too polarized for a situation that is the entire Pantone swatch library of grays. "But, how are there any shades of gray when its clear that Jesse Lacey is in the wrong?" I want to provide some counter questions for you to think about:

What about the other people in the band? You might not be directly supporting the sexual predator anymore, but there are other victims here too- effectively his band mates lost their jobs overnight. (Another example would be LOSTPROPHETS)

Is it feasible to destroy each object you own because it was created under problematic circumstances? When or when isn't this the case? Does it apply to your cup of coffee? Does it apply to the clothes you wear? What about any product with palm oil in it? What about the hardware in your computer? If you look into any company, you're going to find some horrific things you don't like about it. The takeaway here is that it isn't beneficial to treat situations like these as black or white. I don't think that destroying my CDs is going to do anything to take away the abuse that Jesse Lacey caused. Nor do I think ignoring the context of his music will do anyone any favors. The music he made is a product of his crimes. To ignore that fact would be disingenuous to why people enjoy his music and why the music exists in the first place. There's another element here, though. I, and many others, are no longer monetarily supporting Jesse Lacey. You can't even officially support the release of Brand New's music anymore as their record label (Procrastinate! Music Traitors) doesn't even seem to have a functioning website anymore? Regardless, I wouldn't want to support his music in a way that supports him, anyway. Yes, I enjoy the music and the themes of it, but I do not want to be directly supporting abuse that happened BECAUSE he was a vocalist in a band. And I can safely do this with CDs that I bought secondhand, right? This is death of the author. So what's the issue?

I believe there is an issue when people claim “death of the author” far too quickly and scramble to reclaim the media for themselves. It’s an increasingly popular trend these days to pluck characters/concepts from an author deemed to be problematic. "I'll save [Character I like] from this shitty piece of media!", they claim. I don't think people realize how multifaceted in effect that is, though. For instance, if the author is actively making money from their creation, you can't truly "reclaim" a character from them. It's more like you're paying homage to them with fanart.

My best on-going example of this would be Floraverse. There are a multitude of reasons why people do not like the author/s of Floraverse, which I will not go into here. To put it simply, though, since its inception in 2013, many artists and writers involved with Flora either left or were kicked out. These artists either directly contributed to the art and worldbuilding of the webcomic, or were heavily influenced by it. To this day, there are many times someone links me to art on Discord and I’ll say “oh I remember that person, they used to be a Flora fanartist!” and the other person is absolutely floored that that artist was ever linked to Floraverse. Anyway… There have been multiple attempts at people trying to reclaim Floraverse from the author, and this never works out. Like, it really doesn’t work out. Any time that someone tries to reclaim Floraverse characters for themselves whilst condemning the author, that person is dogpiled by the Floraverse community. Which is a weird behavior for a CC BY-SA webcomic, but I digress. Here are some highlights:

In 2019, there was a thread dedicated to Redesigning Floraverse that immediately got taken over by Floraverse itself a month later.

An artist got harassed for multiple years (I think it was 2020-2023) for having an oc based on Beleth, a character in Floraverse.

Just 2 months ago, an artist got harassed for drawing fanart of the characters

Historically, reclaiming Floraverse characters from the author hasn't worked out. And I mean.. why would it? It's an actively running "webcomic" (I'll be charitable) and with an active community that supports the author's current works and views with their wallets. It's one thing to enjoy a piece of media with a problematic author and want to reclaim that media for yourself. It is another for this reclamation to actually be effective. Attempts of "reclaiming" Floraverse get written off as fanworks that the community dislikes. You cannot reclaim Floraverse characters as they do not exist in a vacuum. Listening to secondhand Brand New CDs does work in a vacuum; Jesse Lacey's career is dead in the water. The same cannot be said for reclaiming the art of Glitchedpuppet and co. Floraverse characters and stories are not divorced from the abuses they cause. Characters will be used as strawmen to abuse community members, past or present. Or entire works will be up dedicated to making light of your childhood trauma! These characters were made by an abuser, and will be used to abuse. That is a simple fact about Floraverse. Except... in that statement, I'm not even talking about Glitchedpuppet, the current author of Floraverse. I'm talking about Marlcabinet, the previous author of Floraverse. This statement does however, apply to both of them. Hey, wait a minute, that's weird! I've been talking about "death of the author" for this entire post, and I just said that reclaiming Floraverse characters can't work because the way the characters were used to abuse real people doesn't exist in a vacuum. So like, why does this work within the Floraverse webcomic itself? Marl is the abuser of Glip, but Marl is also the author of the majority of early Floraverse. Isn't the story itself, as it currently stands, an act of reclaiming characters used to abuse community members, minors, and any detractors? Then who is to say that those who contributed to Floraverse and were similarly abused are not also allowed this same privilege? Their real-world suffering is what fuels the comic. When I was 13-16, I adored a Floraverse character named Cayenne. His whole deal was that he was an autistic child slave and was horribly abused by everyone around him. Weird character to connect to, but he’s the character that made me figure out I had autism! I drew a LOT of fanart of this character and I even own a (gifted) life-size plush of him. The authors only ever treated him as a joke and it was a joke even within the Floraverse community that I was the only person who actually liked/cared about him. Sometimes I think about reclaiming him for myself. But I also don’t want to get harassed, and I know I could design much better things, and write better things. Conversely, I also think about how this is the exact character that made me get into contact with Marl when I was 16. It’s a heavy weight to carry knowing that this exact character was the reason I was almost in the clutches of a child predator. Glip personally deferred me to him. Reclaiming Cayenne would hold emotional value for me as a reminder of my triumph over a predator. Would it be wrong for me to reclaim an abused child character from a comic that abused me and many others as children? I've no clue. And I don't think anyone can answer that. I've waffled on it for ~2 years now. Reclaiming Cayenne would give attention to an individual that profits off abusing others, myself included. I'd say that reclaiming Floraverse characters wouldn't be a case of "death of the author", but the original creator of them was a child predator that's no longer on the internet. Floraverse is already practicing death of an author, and it is a shell of its former self. That being said, it is not a story that only has one author. Its other authors are still active, and these authors include every person that it has abused in its wake. After all, it's a comic that relies on you to know about its dramas with and traumas of real people. Tell me: Does a death of the author matter when its being written about you?

[thatveganwhiterose]

Man I love unfollowing blogs that I 99% have agreements with on moral and political beliefs solely because they reblog misinformation about what veganism is, and other related topics, because they decide to make tags like “I hate vegans”.

Like these people unironically claim to be leftists and support leftism, which usually includes reducing waste or harm as much as possible, but then demonize the very movements (veganism and animal rights) that put forth these very practices into action.

It’s one thing to have legitimate criticisms of things, though people also unironically seem to believe that most of these criticisms are BECAUSE OF philosophies such as veganism versus things like capitalism, classism, poverty, etc.

The fact that so many “leftists” have such brain dead takes without using actual critical thinking skills or comprehension that they shriek and cry about the right acting on makes me not trust these fucks farther than I can throw them.

Anyway, if you can’t unironically include veganism or animal rights into your advocacy or activism (which is literally just reducing animal usage as much as you can), you are unironically acting like right-wing reactionaries you cry about.

If you need any clarification or further explanation as to what that is, I am happy to engage in a civil discussion about this.

Bad faith takes will get you ignored or blocked.

I am so tired of being a minority who has to constantly explain why veganism is so important and necessary for all things leftism is concerned with. Like seriously shut the fuck up and actually listen to us and engage with us instead of this continual brain poison and misinformation campaign tumblr and other “leftist” sites love to push.

Yours truly,

A ND Jewish vegan woman

[greater-than-the-sword]

I mean this in a completely genuine and informative way but I have an observation which is when I see autistic people not knowing how to approach a conversation with a neurotypical, usually the invisible rules that are being ignored are the ones that have to do with letting the other person have some choice in picking the conversation topic. Typically it's considered polite to let the other person pick the conversation topic half the time. Obviously there are some people who don't know what to talk about and will be genuinely content to let you pick every time. But most people will want to talk about their stuff sometimes too.

And even with the most obliging person, it's still important to have that "lead in", because the purpose is to establish what's basically their consent, to make sure it's a comfortable and interesting topic for them. So basically you have to make sure they're willing to discuss whatever you want to talk about, without directly putting them in the position of having to say, "I don't want to talk about that." Usually this takes the form of a question like, "Do you like TV dramas?" and if they say "no" or give a really noncommittal answer, that means no and that they probably won't respond well if you start infodumping about your favorite TV drama.

Even if they say yes, you should still start with giving only some information to make sure they want to engage. But the really important part is to let them talk about their own favorite TV drama as well, because you can't just lead in with "do you like TV dramas" and not let them also talk about their favorite TV drama. Also, it's important to be flexible and not force a conversation about a specific subject.

One good rule that I was taught is that you should ask questions as often as you volunteer information. But try to ask safe questions relating to what the other person already seems comfortable talking about, rather than questions which are unrelated to any subject you know they're ok with, because that could risk making them uncomfortable.

[ca-suffit]

I think an important thing to remember when discussing Lestat as a queer icon (since it's a topic on the blog lately) is the fact that he's a queer horror icon. That man was never going to be a good man lol. It's exactly how Dr. Frank-n-Furter is a queer icon despite also being a villain and problematic. It's important to see people that we could relate to or admire in some aspects also be completely terrible, to avoid conflating someone you like with someone you who is good/should be imitated. Especially in the context of domestic violence and abuse in queer relationships. I wish this nuance was more present in fandom, because I don't like how people either treat Lestat like he's just a regular queer icon (as in, they ignore the part that makes him a horror to deal with), or diminish his queerness.

I'm also looking forward to people claiming Louis as a queer icon, I have hopes that it will become a more widespread topic as the show simmers, because I also think that Lestat being heralded as a queer icon in the show comes from decades and decades of him being considered one outside of it. This is the firts time (to my knowledge) that Louis has been compelling to the general public, so I guess with time he'll gain more weight in that discussion. I know it might sound too optimistic, given how black queer characters are usually treated, but I'd rather feel like we can go somewhere with this than feeling dejected.

I would write so many things about Lestat's and Louis' queerness and how they differ and interact and affect their lives and the narrative if I had the time. I'd also like to read/hear more about how Louis' queerness interacts and overlaps with his identity as a black man, so if you (or anyone) have any recs I'll gladly take them.

I think the discussion and even the portrayal of DV in queer (and interracial) relationships is a *huge* one for ppl to sidestep and has been one of the most disappointing things here tbh. we *haven't* seen that explored much in queer stories and it's so fucking *common* irl. there's a *lot* to explore there in so many directions, but ppl skip over that all the time just bcuz they don't want anyone to be "mean" to lestat. u can like things and still discuss and criticize them. as u said, look at the rocky horror picture show and the impact that's had. a lot of queer existence in general is always being "other" somehow, and that's why horror is such a good genre for it. to strip that away bcuz u just wanna play rupaul's drag race with lestat is....I mean, ppl can do what they want on their own, but this collective bullshit of forcing others to conform to this too and thinking ur "right" for doing it is a majority of the reason this fandom sucks. most ppl don't even hate lestat tbh, it's these fans that are the problem. nobody lets anyone meet the story where it's at.

I def think, regardless of what the show ends up becoming as a whole, that amc louis has made a huge impact as a black, queer character in major media. I hope ppl continue to analyze him and be inspired by this character and keep it all rolling forward. nobody expected this to be as good as it was at portraying louis and we're blessed af to have jacob in the part too.

god, I don't remember all the good posts I've seen about louis anymore. I tried to even look but I think most were out of the tags and long ago too. I remember a rly good one talking about claudia's relationship to louis and how he prbly wasn't allowed to play with grace's dolls as a kid, so claudia was kind of his "permission" to do that. it also gives a slightly different perspective to claudia's "doll-like" existence, since this was not something explored in louis in the books or 1994 film.

I feel like, if u or anyone is unfamiliar with james baldwin, reading his stuff will give some irl perspective to amc louis too in various ways. equal in paris is a good S2 companion. I think rolin jones even said giovanni's room was an inspiration for S2 too.

[txxxciii]

Happy PRIDE month!

As a way of celebrating, I will be posting my sexuality/gender-related headcanons of various Mortal Kombat sources, starting with:

MORTAL KOMBAT (2011) LGBT HEADCANONS

(Note: this won't be including guest characters)

Tbh Baraka doesn't have anything interesting going on with him until MK1, but I personally like to headcanon that tarkatans don't have gender norms in a way that we do; reproduction for them is not an important priority, just something you can do if you like how the other one smells or something.

Tarkatans are intersex by default, including Baraka. The "genders" are usually assumed by non-tarkatans, in Baraka's case, by Shao Kahn, who only wished to see male figures in his army.

Btw, tarkatans themselves never refer to each other by pronouns. They do it either by simply saying the name, or making a sound that is only associated with a particular individual.

You already know. The non-binary monarch (king but gn) of MK.

With so many souls living inside you it's only a matter of time when you just start using They/them. Something also tells me that Ermac doesn't mind being called other pronouns – well, not like they care.

I'm sorry, you cannot convince me that Jade "I care more about my friend's safety than myself's" from Edenia likes men. I can go and write a whole rant about Jade and Kotal and how I fucking hate that stupid Walmart Sonic on steroids (not only for his romantic ties though), but I'll save that for later, maybe. Until then, Jade developed a crush on Kitana over time and doesn't wish to let go of her since she's the only reason Jade keeps going everyday. Alas, the feelings are not mutual, but Jade knows better than to envy Liu Kang. She's happy that her friend found her love, and she wishes one day to let go and find her own, too.

Kabal is a gay man, but not a closeted one. He had partners throughout the spam of his adult life, from Black Dragon to police forces.

There were rumors going around inside of Black Dragon that he and Kano had a affair. Whether or not this is true is left for speculation, as neither Kabal or Kano wish to discuss such topic.

What is true, however, is his work romance with Kurtis. At first, Kabal actively denied his attraction towards him, but learned to be more truthful to himself. He had a hard time opening up though, as he did have bitter aftertaste of his previous relationships, but somehow things were pretty decent, mostly thanks to Stryker's demeanor.

(Yeah I'm a strykabal truther, how can you tell?)

Every iteration of Kenshi is demisexual in my eyes. Bad part? I can't really explain my reasoning. Sometimes you just see a character and immediately assume things about them.

Maybe it's due to Kenshi not really having any romantic interests prior to MKX, as far as I can recall. Maybe it's just an ace-dar (as someone who's on the asexual spectrum). Oh well, we'll never know.

Like with Kenshi, every iteration of Kung Lao is gay in my eyes.

I see it more as Kung Lao not realizing his sexuality yet as throughout his life he had no time to think about personal stuff. When he does realize, however, he'll view it as an advantage as monks are typically forbidden from getting married and having intercourse, thus meaning he will less likely be judged by his fellow ones. Yes, he'd plan on simply ignoring this aspect of himself as getting into a relationship would bring a lot of burden (and if Lao falls in love, he will fall HARD).

Mileena is canonically bi!! Duhh! She likes positive attention from anyone, regardless of the race or gender. Either way she will take advantage of the partner and eat them alive :)

She's also part tarkatan, which should technically make her intersex, but since Kitana's genes are the dominant ones, she's assigned female. However, she believes such limitations are stupid, so she uses She/they for herself. It makes her more proud of who she is.

Gods don't need s*x!! Also I think he's canonically genderfluid since he can be literally anyone.

Uhh idk that's it.

One of those times where I can't explain my reasoning... again.

I just feel like Rain liked the thought of absolute control ever since he was young, to the point where he wanted to control his own body's appearance. Even if he didn't realize it, he always wanted to have a body of man, to speak like a man and to be viewed as one as well. Once he finally reached his ideal physique, he felt like he was unstoppable.

... or something like that, lol.

I meaaannn... why else would bro CHOOSE to change into anyone?

I have this little headcanon that Shang Tsung gets bored very quickly. To cure his boredom he'd transform into one of his captured souls and go on with his day until he gets tired of that body too.

———

Alas, these are all for now. Tumblr won't let me upload another image but just so you know, Stryker is a closeted bisexual. No reason other than vibes.

Anyone else who didn't make it to the list are either cyborgs or those who I think are straight. Anyways, hope you enjoyed and understood everything I just wrote. Byeee :3

[vivaciousofficiall]

Are You The Black Sheep Of The Family?

Hello ladies! Welcome to Vivacious Official! Today we’ll be discussing a very sensitive but important topic.

Are you the black sheep of your family?

As a collective, we have been made to believe that family is the most important thing & we should always be loyal to our family.

Which is true for the most part.

However, when do we start to speak about the damage that your family can inflict on to you?

When is it okay to finally draw the line?

When is it okay to acknowledge that being related to someone and "being loved ones" are two different things.

Should we have to tolerate abuse, disrespect & mistreatment all in the name of blood?

This is something many women may struggle with. I'm here to help and clarify your viewpoint so you may make the best decision possible today.

So if this sounds like your situation, then read on.

Who is the black sheep of the family?

The term black sheep is often used to describe a person who doesn’t quite "fit in" in with their family of origin. The odd one out. It can often feel like you’re speaking a different language when you’re around them.

This doesn’t mean there’s something wrong with you, it just means you seem to be cut from a different cloth.

Signs You Are The Black Sheep

You are experiencing/have experienced a spiritual awakening .

You are an independent thinker & you question family traditions.

You have creative gifts and talents.

You are labeled rebellious due to your unique individuality.

You are an empath or highly sensitive person.

Healthy family structures can handle and celebrate individuality. They might not understand your beliefs or way of life, but their love is unconditional. They may tease you occasionally, but they always mean well.

On the other hand, we have dysfunctional family structures where unique personality is not only perceived as a threat but as a punishable offense and this is where scapegoating begins

Dysfunctional Family Systems & Scapegoating.

A dysfunctional family system refers to families that are in constant state of conflict & chaos. Emotional manipulation, neglect, denial & abuse may be prevalent in such families. They refuse to address these issues, preferring to pretend they do not exist while projecting an image of the perfect family to the world.

Scapegoating - can be defined as the projection of shame, blame & unresolved problems on a particular individual rather than taking accountability or looking within.

In a dysfunctional family system, they will usually pick someone who they can dump their unresolved negative emotions on.

The scapegoat then goes on to internalize these false ideas and beliefs about themselves which causes a host of problems in adulthood.

5 Signs Of Scapegoating

1. You don’t feel loved or supported by your family

Conflict is normal in every family. However, your family should be a safe space for you. A group of people you know always have your back. However as the scapegoat, it can feel like you’re constantly being ignored, targeted, isolated etc. Any sign of individuality will be met with criticism and disapproval.

2. Constantly being blamed for issues within the family.

A sure sign of scapegoating is being blamed for any and every issue. Dysfunctional people don’t know how to take accountability or responsibility for their actions so they find someone to dump it on. The scapegoat is the perfect candidate for this.

3. Smear Campaigns

Another sign of scapegoating is being the target of smear campaigns.

A smear campaign can be defined as an assassination of character by a person or group towards an individual. The aim of this is to control the narrative others have of you to further isolate you.

4. Unrealistic expectations of loyalty with no reciprocity

Despite how foul your family treats you, they expect you to be at their beck and call when they need you. They pull the family card despite never really treating you with respect or decency.

5. Flying Monkeys/Enablers

The term "flying monkey" originated in the Wizard of Oz and is now used in psychology to describe persons who work along side an abusive or narcissistic person.

These people watch you get mistreated but don’t do anything to stop it. They often find excuses to justify the behavior of the abuser or use guilt to coerce the victim into submission.

" That’s just how mom is"

" He was just joking around"

" You are tearing this family apart"

These people are just as bad the abuser.

Long Term Effects

As you can tell, being treated like this could leave some long term effects on the individual such as anxiety, depression, low self worth, disconnect from self, cognitive dissonance & dysfunctional habits etc.

If there isn’t a resolution in childhood then this individual may find themselves in adulthood attracting a host of problems like toxic relationships, bullying at school or work, mental health issues & sometimes even physical health issues.

Healing

In my opinion through my personal life & years of research. I’ve noticed that black sheep’s are actually cycle breakers.

Cycle Breaker - A person that is here to disrupt an ongoing toxic cycle and birth a new path for the lineage.

You are the one who sees through the facade & is unwilling to continue the pattern which makes them extremely uncomfortable.

In other words, your light irritates their darkness.

However what you need to heal from is being the scapegoat.

As I mentioned earlier, scapegoating can have a lasting impact for an individual, and in order to step into your purpose, you must first heal & let go of those wounds.

How To Heal & Step Into Your Purpose

1. Go low contact.

It is important to create a new environment for yourself. Have you ever heard the saying " you can’t heal in the same place you got sick"

In order to heal you must first remove yourself from the toxic environment.

This means you have to be independent of your family. If you’re over the age of 18, you should be putting together an action plan to move out of your family house.

This should be your number one priority.

2. Get support.

As you begin to heal, you may want to isolate yourself. It is important that you have support around you. This could be friends or some members of your family that have always supported you.

There are so many people who have been through the same thing so don’t be afraid of joining forums or support groups.

You went through something traumatic so you need all the love you can get.

3. Heal.

In order to overcome this and step into your purpose then you need to move from wounded energy to your healed divine state.

Going low/no contact isn’t enough. If you’ve been the subject to toxic individuals then you would have picked up limiting beliefs about yourself and the world.

It is only after you begin healing that you are able to break the cycle & help others.

Inner work is the best healing tool there is.

Inner work is a process of taking control & reconstructing your thoughts, beliefs, emotions, habits & transforming into a better version of yourself.

This could be in the form of journaling, meditating, processing your emotions, affirmations, therapy etc.

If you are ready to start healing and shifting then i’m inviting you to join my FREE masterclass happening on Saturday 15th Of June 2024 (10 AM PST)

High Value Mindset Makeover Masterclass

This is an intimate & transformational masterclass hosted by yours truly. The masterclass will be centered on moving from wounded energy to divine/healed energy.

I will be touching on healing & inner work, elegance & lifestyle, dating, high value mindset shifts, stepping into your power/purpose & so much more!

This is an opportunity you don’t want to miss and it’s completely free of charge so you have no excuse!

If you would like access then DM me "Masterclass" & I will send additional information & access!

See you there!

Xoxo, Vivacious

[am-i-the-asshole-official]

WIBTA if I break off an old friendship with someone who stayed by my side despite my mental and general life issues, after everyone else had left?

This friend from high school had been a great friend, kept me company when I was all alone, supported me through two bad breakups, we went to the same college and we were very close.

Until I started talking more openly about politics, being queer, mental health etc. She's the facebook liberal type, slightly left of center. She gave me the freedom to be more open with her by being cool with taboo topics, then turned sour when it extended beyond what she knew. Examples, she'd change subject if I talked about queer media when normally she's telling her friends how she had a sleepover with her "wife" and saw each other naked. She was surprised to learn that you're not supposed to out someone against their will. She believes cops are bad only in USA. We're not Americans.

She started being open with me too, she told me how she hated it when her classmates talked about their favorite music, how she hated any fandom stuff they talked about besides discussing fanfics with another fandom friend, how she makes excuses so she can go wherever she wants alone and not with friends. She told me she spies on my exes on facebook insta etc and tried to tell me what they've been up to and only stopped telling me about after many requests and explanations as to why that made me really uncomfortable.

A few months ago she and I had a fight, she exclaimed that my politics was too American (I'm just an average leftist like most of 30+ tumblr and my other friends), that my politics was too fandom oriented (she avoids fandom so much she has blocked activists for even hinting at being a fandomgoer, like discussion of racism in fandom is waste of time and silly to her, fan-anything can't be taken seriously), mocked me for having childish interests (just knowing pop culture in general) then we stopped talking.

After some months she texted that she really misses talking to me as I was her only "progressive friend" who understood her when she wanted to discuss feminism, movies, world politics etc. She said she needed me to be her gateway to pop culture knowledge as I knew so many cool new things. She begged me to be friends again, and since I missed hanging out with her a lot I started chatting again. But I told her that it was hard for me to forgive her and I'd leave for real if she hurts me again.

This time she let go of the normal daily stuff we used to talk about and only stuck to Topics of Debate. She asked me to teach her progressive thinking, educate her, but when I asked if she wanted to touch on lgbt+ topics or physical -mental health related topics outside of her comfort zone of basic sexual health, she danced around a lot instead of giving an answer. I snapped and asked yes or no, she said no.

I asked her if she understands that even if she didn't feel like those topics were her priority, I'd probably want to talk about them with her as a queer neurodivergent person and friend, would that be an issue? She kind of ignored it to say that basically her priority was just local political gossip, religion, and a little bit of solarpunk stuff, outdated at that. I was disappointed but let it go and we decided to talk later.

The other day she messaged me with her usual gossip about how her friends are being too excited about some music stuff and what book she thinks I should read (we have completely different taste). And I got a panic attack. Since then I've had multiple panic attacks at the thought of having to talk to her.

She has been one of my oldest friends, she supported me and took my side in every breakup I had and she forced me to go outside when I was severely depressed, she was practically family, but now I feel like I'm walking on eggshells. If I bring up any topic she dislikes she's going to turn away, if I come out to her as trans she'll joke and start to avoid me, she doesn't want to learn anything new even though she takes pride in being a great learner, if I talk about things that make me happy she'll ignore it. I don't know if she'll go and tell others how cringey my interests are. Maybe she'll go to my exes and tell them I used her as support and threw her away when she didn't meet the standard as that's been a line of thinking among my exes.

I'm also struggling with BPD and anxiety, so maybe I'm hating her now and will want her back later, it's my brain being a jerk? I think I'm overreacting and she won't do any of these, but I also feel so drained after we talk these days. I need friends who I can talk to about mundane things, friends who share memes with me and tell me what anime they're passionate about, what new recipe they liked, instead I feel like I'm just there to drag her down with my issues and politics and dumb jokes. But multiple people think I used and discarded them for not agreeing politically, I'd usually disagree but what if I am the problem and I expect too much?

So I'm asking, am I being a jerk if I cut her off?

What are these acronyms?

[horizon-verizon]

https://www.tumblr.com/horizon-verizon/756487959478452224/condal-truly-said-that-he-sees-daemon-as-someone?source=share

Usually when a work of fiction, or any topic in general, is discussed, it's only expected for people to come up with theories of their own. The next step is to validate a theory by weighing them against valid sources and, in the case of fiction, the canon and then debate on its plausibility.

But when one has to outright disregard canon and alter several details about it in order to fit their interpretation, then it ceases to be a discussion related to that topic and goes into fanfiction territory. This is precisely what Condal is doing with the show and, specifically, for some reason, with Daemon.

Had Condal been a fanboy lurking on tumblr or in Reddit spaces and said stuff like Daemon teleported into the Vale to smash Rhea's head with a rock or that he arrived at the Riverlands after the Battle Of the Burning Mill and didn't do much during the war, he would either be ignored or downvoted or called out because the aforementioned events cannot be refuted even with the now misused excuse of F&B being an unreliable narration. They happened on specific dates, in a particular sequence and were witnessed by people. Daemon was present in the Stepstones at the time of Rhea's accident and Rhea being alive for nine days after that without mentioning any foul play rules out the possibility of an assassin. Regardless of what people personally thought of B&C within their closed doors, it did not affect Rhaenyra's position among her allies in canon or hindered their efforts to raise an army.

Unfortunately, Condal isn't just some biased fanboy harboring elaborate canon defying fantasies but the showrunner in charge of adapting F&B and its characters. And, there are several instances in which one can see his and Hess' bias permeating through the script, not just with Daemon but with other characters too. The characters on the show aren't the ones GRRM wrote but what C&H want them to be.

Though, with Daemon, it's amusing because they didn't even spare the smallest of details such as Daemon capturing Harrenhal and House Strong's 'not so inconsiderable wealth' which is expressly stated in the book and had to make a point to say twice on the show that Larys had the gold moved out and it is an empty castle.

One would think Condal feels personally aggrieved by this fictional characters. Hess does too, for different reasons. But in Condal's case,specifically, I just can't help but feel he is one of those disgruntled fans who dislike Daemon just because he sincerely supported Rhaenyra instead of opposing her just like how he probably begrudges Rhaenyra for not giving up her claim in Aegon's favour.

So, ultimately, it all boils down to Rhaenyra.

I do wonder how GRRM fumbled the bag once more with the showrunners. One would think he would be more cautious after what happened with D&D.

@deus-sema

And people wonder why people have called HotD not an adaptation but fanfiction? Hmmm....

And I agree that Ryan feels like one of those fans--who seem to be the very dim majority of "book" fans who just skim--who resents Daemon for being at her side and for her claim even if they won't admit to themselves; this has been a point people have said many times as and after S1 ended. Too lazy to pull up examples & posts I reblogged or made right now.

[ask-ikevamp-charles]

NSFW content rules/boundaries

< This potentially may never be used if no one ends up sending something that falls under this BUT it’s important it’s here just in case. Better to be safe than sorry 😊 >

[ This is a role play blog so role playing is allowed. If there’s something specific you’d like to act out, please talk to me and I will do it if I’m comfortable. I am 21+ so NSFW with limitations is allowed. 

Sexual topics: flirting and suggestive questions/comments are okay. Sexual questions/comments can also be educational/informative, I’m very comfortable with the topic in such discussions. ]

These ^ NSFW rules can be found on the original rules of this blog. Here I will explain more in detail what it means. I decided to put the rules/boundaries in question form because it seemed easier to make things clear. Will be adjusted if needed.

Is the admin really that comfortable with NSFW based content?

Yes, I did an entire semester project on it for one of my college classes (public speaking) 😂 The professor said if we could make the topic fit the project prompt and rules, we could use basically any topic. Had to run it by him, I got approved and BAM! It was all so interesting that I continue to research these things in my free time. Also, I enjoy reading erotica, it’s fun 😂

What falls under NSFW interaction?

Any exchange where you insert yourself into an explicit sexual question/prompt. 

Ex: An exchange discussing how you’d like the character to do something sexual with you or vice versa.

Ex: If you have built your own story with the character through exchanges and you want to add sexual topics.

How explicit can the roleplay get? 

At the moment, I think I’ll stick to writing as explicitly as Cybird does for their spicy scenes. If there are any changes I’ll update here. 

I have a role-play idea I want to act out with Charles, how can I set that up? (Both anon & non-anon)

Simple, DM me and tell me what you're thinking. If I feel I can create a good scene and I'm comfortable with what you're suggesting, we can set it up. 

How do I know if something I said made the admin uncomfortable?

Easy, I’ll tell you immediately. 

Something the admin said in my response pushed past my limits, what do I do? 

Easy, tell me immediately. Don’t just ignore my response. I can’t understand or correct the situation or apologize if you don’t communicate with me. With ALL sexual topics, in ANY situation, communication is important. I always try my best to word things as best I can while not crossing boundaries while also being in character, I can mess up sometimes, so please just be honest and tell me 😊. That being said, if you want to engage in prompt role play, you need to clearly tell me your hard limits in DM.

Can I simply ask Charles if he’s interested in something without age verification? 

Yes. You will receive a simple yes or no based response, nothing more specific. 

Ex: Charles, would you be interested in having sex with a guy? - Yes! I’m open to it 😊

Can I ask Charles about his thoughts on certain kinks/philias without age verification?

No.   

While sex ed is taught in middle/high school, it's not ever anything related to kinks. It's usually safe sex basics and reproduction stuff (at least thats what I remember). 

Can I send flirty/suggestive things without age verification? 

Yes. If I deem something is pushing this rule to its limit, my response will serve to tone down the question. 

Requirement for NSFW interaction if you are sending an anonymous ask: 

Use something to identify yourself to sign off your ask (emoji, letter, random word)

DM me so I can see age (18+👍🏻 , specific age is not needed) make sure to include the sign off used in your ask so I know which one is yours.

You can remain publicly anonymous but it’s important I am able to verify that you’re an adult. If you’re a minor and you interact with the blog despite the clear MDNI, that’s on you and your lack of responsibility. I apologize if this comes off rude but I’m following the age rating of the games themselves. These games have explicit age ratings; because of lots of different topics btw, not just sexual.

Don’t take the character response as a sex ed lesson; always inform yourself on whatever you’re curious about. Talk to experts or experienced individuals and do your own research, if you’re a curious minor talk to trusted adults.

If you don’t use the anonymous feature then none of this applies to you, feel free to ask/comment/prompt whatever you’re comfortable with. 

Here are some examples of kinks I’m comfortable with. I can’t realistically list off every single kink so if you’re curious about a specific philia/kink just send in an ask or DM me about it and I’ll tell you if I’m comfortable:

👍🏻 Kinks  

Blindfold Sex

Exhibitionism/Voyeurism 

Breath Play

Sadism/Masochism 

Humiliation/Degradation/Praise Kink 

Role Play (I know it’s a role play blog but this category means professor/college student, doctor/nurse, boss/assistant etc.)

 Temperature Play 

👎🏻 Kinks (I won’t write for these either because I’m not on board with it or because I don’t have enough writing experience with it)

Anilingus  

Anal sex 

Cuckolding 

Foot Fetish 

Tentacles 

Golden showers 

I understand it's a lot of rules to keep in mind and some might feel uncomfortable DMing me because they don't want to reveal their account. However, these rules are meant to help keep things as safe as possible online. All DMs are completely confidential. 

If you’re still unsure about something regarding this please don’t hesitate to DM me or send an ask. I tried to think of the most important points but it’s possible I missed something.

Thank you 🌙

[pumpumdemsugah]

As black women who has always felt lost in black women's spaces due to their negligence of misogyny, your blog is really a bliss!

One of your recent responses about the curious tradition of the antifeminism from het black women was very on point and made me reflected once again the interconnection between race and sexuality but this topic is barely touched and when it's, it's usually approached in a way that places race above other systems of oppression or any other concerns towards misogyny, homophobia and capitalism is dismissed as “engaging in white supremacist theories” in some black activism circles.

However, as sad as it is, there are plenty of reactionary rhetoric among black women (and it doesn't really matter if they identify as feminists or if they're are openly antifeminists) and these untouchable topics don't get discussed. And the worst part is, we, Black women who do see these tendencies, sometimes even doubt what we're actually seeing. In some cases we even think we're in reality buying a white perspective for simply being able to see that a lot of black women can also reproduce the dominant culture like everyone does because we were all socialized into it.

But, imo, what makes sexuality really relevant when the topic about why so many black women dismiss misogyny, is because het feminists from all branches of feminism tend to equate womanhood to heterosexuality. In het black women's case it happens added to the notion that they are black women IN RELATION TO WHITE WOMEN! The race changes the flavor of the misogyny but it doesn't erase black womanhood neither downplay the importance of the misogyny for us. In reality, it makes our situation even more oppressive. All the talks about intersectionality but a lot of them fail to grasp that the concepts about white feminity/black masculinity don't exist in a vacuum neither separated, specially in western countries.

Race was used as a tool to divide women in deep hierarchies of power that even classes divisions alone couldn't do it. But this fact is just ignored. Instead, these het black women try to prove that misogyny isn't that bad because since they were left out of the specific ways the upper-class white women were oppressed, the oppression just don't exist. This vision ironically reinforce the idea that they claim to oppose, that only white women are “real women”, to the point of their oppressor race status canceling out misogyny not only for them but also for us. It's weird how somehow misogyny against white women become positive and something to aspire to have because if it happens to them, it's, in reality, white supremacy and in an equal society, the oppressed groups should have the same rights that used to be restricted to the oppressors. This is why a lot Black women will sell the myth of the romantic het love to their audience as a core part of black women's empowerment(ignoring lesbians and bi women experiences), but their whole talking about race/white supremacy usually just reinforce misogynoir.

!!!

It's so hard to get through to straight Black women and they love being wrong and strong. There are so many anti-feminist Black women that call themselves feminist and claim they empower Black women. They're just interested in benevolent sexism and want the rest of us to follow along even if our sexuality means it complicates this delusion

[formulinos]

on the monday after jeddah, eurosport fr dropped an episode of their podcast "les fous du volant" and one of the topics was, obviously, her. Scuderia Ferrari.

normally i wouldn't pay as much attention as to italian/british media but given that we have a stronger french presence in Ferrari again, i think these reports shouldn't be completely ignored. so, i listened to it and i did some notes, in case you guys missed it.

so, from 27:31, they talk about how the current performance and expectations for the season are just the tip of the iceberg. i split it into general topics, stuff that is important to note is in bold:

gino rosato: his function was external relations (link up and host the VIPs + any other task that involved dealing with the world outside of maranello); joined Ferrari before jean todt but just as an occasional freelancer - todt made him a full time employer; montezemolo and kimi protected him. he left with kimi in 2009 and came back with him in 2014; main feeling is that his role was more politic than it seemed and he acted as a supervisor of both inner and outer Ferrari at times; vigna took the Scuderia by his own hands when he came in and rosato was let go; since his role was such an insider role, he is the main suspect for the yapping to the italian press; vasseur's arrival tackled the binotto clan and started to dismantle it; bonus joke about rosato moving to AM.

laurent mekies: he was being prepped to become binotto's successor with his career evolution; vasseur reworked his role inside Ferrari after the restructuring that happened last year; the two studied in the same uni; he had several proposals (f1, fia, alpine/hyvia) in december but vasseur vetoed his exit; vasseur is inquired (probably by the board of directors) on how and why he's taking these choices of breaking up the binotto clan;

david sanchez: sanchez wouldn't have been let go easily with only vasseur's demand, means elkann authorised the move and is behind fred; thus, when vasseur says he has a lot of freedom, he probably means it; it's a matter of recreating the team culture; sanchez's move possibly opens a precedent for later moves: enrico cardille (head of chassis area) is close to his end of contract, yet to see if he is going to be retained as well since he is part of the binotto clan and he was part of the sf23 design team; sanchez fired after discussion w/ charles at training is at the very least interesting (they lowkey imply it was the final nail in the coffin); discussion as to whether Ferrari considers this year finished and must be sacrificed to develop 2024 or not - usually upgrades are anticipated in february according to what engineers might feel the car will require in the upcoming races, but we're yet to see if with the 2023 car will be affected by role changes. 

drivers: discussion on their approach to charles and how he felt he could have done more in jeddah if he was ahead of carlos; charles would have indeed inquired elkann on future plans for the team and the structure of Ferrari; they cite that his contract will end in 2024 and lots of teams might try to seduce him for 2025; sainz in an awkward role as no2 but not quite openly, also could rethink his future. 

the most interesting thing is the link to gino rosato as the possible leaker (he truly is one of kimi's closest friends, and was in Ferrari for nearly 30 years if you add his two stints up, but then again we never expected stepney to do spygate innit). i saw a few other outlets also name jonathan giacobazzi (executive race manager, whatever the fuck that means) as another possible whistleblower (he was let go together with gino) but i heard of no such thing in this podcast, at least. we'll stay tuned. forza Ferrari!

[anhed-nia]

I finally finished reading The Phantom of the Opera, which is a total mess and often mind-numbing, but one of its main crimes involves this device I often see in pulp fiction that's sort of curious. Gaston Leroux has a lot of trouble figuring out what you can just summarize versus what you need to describe in detail, and when you should do those things. For instance:

The Phantom's main demand is that the opera's resident diva should make way for Christine. He also wants a dedicated box, and an allowance of $20,000. The managers are skeptical of the widely-believed rumor that the Phantom is a real ghost (because why would a ghost need money?), and assume someone is scamming them. They ignore the Phantom's demands, which incurs an act of violence--and that's the whole narrative purpose of these guys, to provoke the Phantom one time so we can tell he means business. And the main thing is Christine, who is the center of the entire plot; the money part is so inconsequential that it doesn't even make it into most adaptations. It's not as if the Phantom specifically needs money For Something, and also the managers aren't in danger of bankruptcy or whatever. When you take the money out of the story, it continues to function in exactly the same way, this is really not a load-bearing issue.

However, what happens is that in the third act when Christine is mysteriously kidnapped out of the middle of a performance and you feel like FINALLY something exciting is going to happen, suddenly we're forced to rewind an hour or two so we can spend time with the managers who are having a complicated conversation about the Phantom's allowance and also still debating whether the Phantom is real. At this point I know the Phantom is real, Christine knows, her stupid not-boyfriend Raoul knows, and the only thing that really matters is saving Christine and hopefully having some kind of thrilling final showdown (which doesn't happen btw)...but we're stuck with these two pointless characters who spend literally around 20 pages arguing about how it is that the Phantom's allowance is conveyed to him. Like what's the method of administration there. It's incredibly uninteresting and doesn't serve the plot really at all. And at the very end of the book the Phantom gives back all the money, so it turns out that we didn't even need to spend time on this idea in the first place.

BUT we are not done with this topic. During the epilogue the narrator, who has been aggregating all this testimony about the Phantom debacle, goes back to one of the survivors and asks him how the money moves around, and there's this extremely dull description of exactly how the Phantom was able to creep around everywhere--something we already take for granted about him by now--and then there is even further discussion of how the Phantom gave all the money back, which affects nothing. Also in the epilogue is a brief summary of the Phantom's actually-interesting backstory of being a carnival freak and an ingenious polymath who learned the art of villainy from a sadistic sultan's daughter--like oh my god, why is this not in the main story where the 20 pages of money talk is just taking up space and slowing everything down?? But that's the kind of thing that Gaston Leroux thinks is not that cool and he can just casually shove it up the ass end of the story to check a box.

What this made me think about, besides how bad the book is despite the story's enduring popularity, is that there's kind of a thing in pulp writing where MONEY just becomes involved for its own sake. And let me be more specific, because I realize that money is a common motivator of many kinds of genre plots: Heists are a whole subgenre, terrorists in action movies usually want money, money is essential to any mob-related story, and actually there was a whole rash of "recession horror" movies in the last 10-15 years (think KNIVES OUT). But often when you're reading a horror novel, or something like that where the main plot is not finance-related, it happens that the hero experiences a huge windfall or discovers a major stash, and it can be a convenience to explain how they get from Point A to Point B, but it often feels like it's just there for the thrill of it. When we think about the exploitation elements of genre storytelling, we usually think about scenes of "gratuitous" sex and violence that mainly exist to provide titillation and catharsis, but I think there is a kind of pornography of money that sometimes enters the picture for the same reasons. In the (awful) Girl With the Dragon Tattoo series, Lisbeth's ability to steal is indulged with great interest, but it isn't just about the thrill of the caper or its effects on the bad guys; there are quite long (and strangely sort of good) stretches that just involve Lisbeth alone administrating her hoard, shopping, looking at apartments, taking little trips, etc. They're just languorous descriptions of what it would be like to have money, designed to inspire a sense of desire and pleasure in the reader that isn't much related to the story. Knowing that author Stieg Larsson had been a broke journalist who ate nothing but McDonald's all the time seems to explain this to some degree. I'm sure there are also examples of this in the work of Stephen King, who grew up without indoor plumbing for a time. Not that you need to have been dirt poor to understand the pornography of money, but I'm sure it helps. I wish I could think of more concrete examples, I just know it's very familiar. If you read any amount of genre fiction, you've probably thought of some yourself.

[yamayuandadu]

Which authors do you consider reliable, and would you recommend for studying Egyptian mythology?

I'm sorry but for personal reasons I've decided I'm not going to answer vague questions like this anymore. I'm going to simply direct you to the bibliographies of quite literally hundreds of wikipedia articles I wrote. They are all compiled in one place here. I don't think having to look through them is all that time-consuming, and books and articles listed have bibliographies themselves so there's no shortage of sources. If you want to learn something well, you will need to figure out firsthand how to make use of that - there's no shortcut. I'm not all that interested in Egyptology but you will find a plenty of relevant sources in articles like Yam, Resheph and Horon. Have fun. This is probably a harsh response, but I'm not sure how to tackle recent problems in any other way. I've noticed things I put actual effort into and/or enjoy talking about usually do not spark any real discussion - they get notes but clout is not a value in itself to me. Because of that, I admit being asked to just provide people with bibliographies, often on topics I don't talk about much and have limited interest in starts to feel like I'm viewed as a search engine, not as a person. This is the primary factor behind the decision to stop answering vague bibliographical asks. Additionally, I know this can be difficult when you are new to something, but please at least try to consider if something can be answered without writing a multi-page essay, if it was asked before, and if the question isn’t directly answered in one of the books I recommend basically monthly and/or use in the monthly wiki contributions. Also note I run this blog entirely pro bono - I don't have a kofi or patreon or anything. On top of that, each month I have to put actual work into wikipedia to retain access to academic publications. I simply cannot dedicate too much of my free time to preparing bibliographies for others.

Finally, on a related note: while this is not aimed directly at the anonymous person who sent this ask, please do not dm me - whether here or on discord or anywhere else - just outright asking me to give you a specific book or article, especially if we do not really talk otherwise. I didn’t really do anything about such situations in the past and sometimes even sent the requested books but from now on I’m going to ignore any such requests or block over that.

Once again, I'm sorry if all of this sounds harsh. This is a necessary change.

[dykeulous]

if israel needs to be dismantled and if war is a good thing in this particular case to get it destroyed by hamas or another group forcibly taking it, would you condone a group within canada or usa of native folks doing the same thing, taking over the government fully and renaming everything, erasing all the cultures (including non-white cultures, bc not all israel is white either) that were formed in those areas? would you be all for that or not? i'm part native myself, and personally i'd much rather see a dual government ownership, like how canada is dealing with this by acknowledging throughout governmental stuff that this is native land, and that native people deserve to be recognized for their efforts and need to have native quotas to fill in government positions, jobs, etc. couldn't israel just do the same thing? why do we need israel to be dismantled compared to that? if you can't answer this personally i'll go to someone else btw and that's no problem, i'm not looking at books or other content creators. i want a real discussion with a person who knows the material and the topic well enough to put it into words for the average person. feel free to ignore this if that's too big of a question. i'm also dating a jewish woman and have had horrific stuff about jewish ppl written in my building, and i also have palestinian friends who are more nuanced on this topic and don't want israel to be dismantled, only for a dual government. i usually see you have nuance on topics like these, so i'm just curious and i wanted to reach out and see what you think since you clearly feel rly strongly about it

hello!

when talking about the relations between israel and palestine, we must first recognize that the israeli doing in palestine is not a war, it is not a conflict, it is not a politically charged agenda– it is a genocide, and using any other word to refer to it further pushes the narrative that both sides are equally responsible, equally violent & equally powerful– which could not be further from the truth. i know you probably didn’t mean it maliciously, but i am very big on using the correct terminology in all aspects, and failing to do so, in this specific case, can be especially dangerous. we have to name things. what is going on in palestine is a genocide. the israeli, or the zionist, goal is to ethnically cleanse the palestinian land– i hope you can understand how calling it a war is not only an understatement, but can also be very harmful.

now that we’ve addressed this, i can go on and answer your questions. you mentioned hamas, and while i’m aware you didn’t explicitly state that hamas is capable of destroying israel, i will need to provide a brief history of hamas origins. hamas was propped up & funded by the israeli government in the late 70s, and israeli officials themselves have confessed to this, in order to destabilize the palestine liberation organization– a radically leftist organization that called for the liberation of palestine. israel, quite literally, created hamas. israel is a colonialist state, and to claim that a few thousand of rebels are capable of destroying it in any way, is to be truly blind to the atrocities israel is commiting in palestine.

that being said, i absolutely do believe that israel has to be destroyed, and i do not believe that a two-state solution is in any form viable. you cannot be anti-imperialist if you hold the opinion that a simple ceasefire will be enough for the full liberation of palestinian people– palestinian people have my full, unequivocal, unconditional support. victims of violent anti-arab hatecrime, dehumanizing apartheid, ethnic cleansing– are not, in any way, shape, or form, obligated to share power positionists or governments with their oppressors, with their colonizers of over seven decades. we all have to be aware of the atrocities happening in palestine, and refusing to educate ourselves & masking our comfort & complicity with palestinian oppression under the guise of “well nuance!” won’t ever bring anything good for anyone. this truly is not a hard pill to swallow. this is not all that nuanced, all that complex, all that complicated. it is pretty simple, actually. israel is committing a genocide.

as for your question regarding whether i would support the overturning of canadian or usamerican governments– i absolutely & unconditionally would. i am pro-returning the national parks to tribes, as well. if there was a movement trying to overturn the governments in favor of native americans, it would gain my unconditional support. usamerica & canada aren’t any better than israel, and i don’t think they are much of a caveat in this discussion. they aren’t a caveat, at all. they are evil.

🇵🇸!!!FROM THE RIVER TO THE SEA!!!🇵🇸

[celestie0]

Hello there <3

I've been following you for quite some time now, but been more on the silent reader brigade, but I just wanna say I love your work so much and I'm totally not checking your Tumblr and Ao3 like every few hours to see if there's an update of Kickoff, but anyways-

I saw this one post you made answering another persons claim of gangbang and orgy being a different thing (which is true), but gangbang referring to just rape also which is not.

I'm Sorry, but I feel like I have to educate people here ^^' just ignore this if you're bothered by my 'uhm actually' attitude here :')

A gangbang refers to a group of dominating people (mostly men) having sex with a single (or at least fewer) submissive person (mostly women). It doesn't have to be rape necessarily, but is often interlinked with it given the circumstances.

An orgy on the other hand is just a bunch of people having sex with each other, regardless of their stance and amount of subs and doms.

So, taking this in consideration with the original post you made about like the haunted house thingy with the JJK men as ghosts (feel free to correct me ^^') it would indeed count as a gangbang, consensual or not, unless they would fuck each other as well, which would be so hot not gonna lie :')

I hope I could shine some light on this topic and you're not mad at me for being so overly correct about it... I just feel like it's something a lot of people get mixed up quite easily and I want to clarify the right terms and meanings.

Sooo... Now, after revealing my questionable knowledge about things I maybe shouldn't share on the internet, I'll go back in my silent corner and relentlessly stalk your account for updates :3

Btw no stress about it, we all know how occupied you are and we've all been there, so take your time <3

hi my dear!! thanks so much for taking the time to explain this. tw rape/noncon below the cut

yeah, my own original conception was similar. i thought gangbang was just multiple people on one person (usually multiple men on one woman) and any examples i had seen online in porn at least were not even remotely related noncon so i guess that was my perception was to never question that it wasn’t inherently consensual. n then yea orgy was just multiple people w multiple other people like a fuck party LMFAOOO the way this convo is so technical is kinda funny to me but it’s educational too so it’s fine. i can see how these two definitions are very different in nature, so they’re not entirely interchangeable regardless of the discussion of consensual vs nonconsensual

but when that anon pointed it out, i looked it up and i did see quite a few urban definitions of gangbang as something that is indeed non consensual?

this is the definition that google has formally placed at the top (not saying google knows all lol) but i did see a few other definitions that were similar in other websites

i’m not entirely sure what’s credible, since my definition was purely based on porn i’ve seen 💀 i’m no sex ed specialist. but i acknowledge your definition as well!! bottom line, i really don’t want to endorse any sort of behavior or acts on this blog that are nonconsensual or having to do w rape, so i think maybe i will find other ways around describing multi partner scenarios without using the word “gangbang” going forward!! i think i’d rather use a diff word(s) if it can explain it the same way rather than using a word my followers may find triggering or upsetting. i hope this isn’t coming off as me not accepting your definition or your input!! i really appreciate you for taking the time to educate n share <33

and aaa thank uuu so very much for the sweet words ab my writing!! :”) it means sm to me SLSKDJDH lol i’m so flattered to know u check my blog that often but also so sorry for the delays w chapters 😭😭😭 you’re too sweet n kind n thank you so much for your patience!! have a wonderful day/night my love :)