#you cannot argue with me because im correct

[thebeardedladyofthelake]

[ineffablydaydreaming]

Okay i might be a little pissed off. Expect typos, im on my phone.

A character does not need a specific label, have a gender, nor have sex/romantic physical gestures in order to be queer rep

Aziraphale and Crowley are not gay men.

They are played by male actors. They present male most of the time. But that means nothing, because gender presentation =/= gender identity or sex.

Neil has said multiple times that angels and demons are sexless. It's on the book. It's on several of his tweets and answers to asks. This implies that angels and demons are non-binary by default. Gabriel isn't a man, Michael isn't a woman, Beelzebub isn't a woman, Furfur isn't a man.

And now, you could argue that a genderless creature isn't necessarily queer and I agree! Several animals are genderless irl.

But here's what makes them queer: it's not that they don't have a gender, it's that they don't give a fuck about it. Crowley presents female i believe up to three times in the show, Neil was planning a minisode where both he and Aziraphale are fem-presenting in the 60s; Michael is a male angel name and he's played by an actress and (At least in the portuguese dub? Correct me if im wrong) still called "he". Same for Beelzebub, who I think is also reffered to with they/them in english. Hell, God has a female voice and is still called God (the male version of the word!!!) and even Her pronouns are a bit flexible in certain dubs.

What makes them queer is that their genderless aspect isn't just biological, it's their identity, too. These characters are all non-binary, they know it, and they don't mind it.

"But they present male and call each other 'he'!"

As I said, gender presentation does not equal identity and neither does pronouns. It's words: words that get often associated with a certain gender but are, in the end, just words.

Not only that, but this argument also comes from the expectation that non-binary people cannot present themselves in a binary way, which is an absurd thing to expect. People irl have all kinds of different hormonal balances and many enby folk may be hypermasculine or hyperfeminine due to high testosterone or estrogen respectively. And you know what? They might not want to change that, and that is completely fine.

Non binary people do not owe you androginy.

Being trans isn't about appearances, isn't about transitioning, it's about identity. Thinking otherwise is borderline transmedicalist ideology.

Good Omens breaks gender norms all the fucking time in both seasons, something many shows are afraid to do, and it's not just for comedy reasons, which tends to be the norm when shows do it. They do it because it's fun, it's fine, and because they acknowledge that gender norms are stupid.

That's queer as hell.

My second point, no need for labels. Just like angels and demons don't need gender labels, they don't need sexuality labels. At all. Especially since they're often intertwined.

Just because two characters don't have their specific labels revealed doens't mean they aren't queer or, fuck's sake, don't love each other.

In A League Of Their Own, no characters get specific labels, what they are is simply implied. Greta is very implied to be lesbian but they never say the exact word. Does that mean she isn't queer?

In The Song Of Achilles, no characters get specific labels because hell, the labels didn't exist at the time the story takes place in. Both main characters are implied to be bi/pansexual but it's obviously never told in the text. Does that mean they aren't queer?

In Undertale and Deltarune, no characters get specific labels, but in both games the main protagonist is nonbinary (and is in both cases a human being!) and both games have several mlm and wlw couples and several more nonbinary characters across the storyline, but it's never specifically labeled. Does that mean it doesn't have queer rep?

Neil has said several times that Good Omens is a love story, that Aziraphale and Crowley love each other, that even if they're not 'gay male humans' they still feel love for one another. That's the entire point of season two.

And now, I get it, okay? I don't like authors tip-toeing around labeling their characters either, especially since in most places we are past the age of having to code characters instead of just make them openly queer. I get the fear and uncertainty that often came from some sort of trauma from bbc's Sherlock, I felt it too. I get that for some it may seem as if it's queerbaiting, or pink money, or simply being too scared to say a character is queer.

But that's just not the case with Good Omens. The point is not to avoid labels because they're scary. The point is that, for Good Omens, and aziracrow, labels are useless. They're not humans, they don't have a gender, they don't need the labels.

And you know what?

That's also queer as hell.

Society has to put people into boxes, has to separate folk, has to label everyone. No one can be different, and id you are you need to fit this specific box of different. If you go out, you're too much, you're too rebellious, you're a freak. If they just let people do whatever they wanted it would be hard to marginalize them and keep the system going.

A quote I once heard feels important for this occasion:

"To define yourself is to restrain yourself."

When you define something in strict terms you're putting rules to it. Rules that can be broken. Rules that should be broken. And the rulebreakers get insulted, hated, violated, killed.

Aziraphale and Crowley are breaking these rules by 'existing' as who they are. They're not gay men, they're not lesbian women, they're not bisexual agenders, but at the same time they are all of those things at the same time, whenever they want to, whenever YOU want them to, as Neil himself put it. Because fuck labels. And you're hating them for it, hating them because they're refusing to enter those boxes.

Humans are weird and complex. Let the angels and demons be weird and complex too.

Lastly, queer relationships don't need sex - nor kisses.

There's this expectation that romantic love is only true love if they kiss, if they live together, if they sleep on the same bed, if they go on dates, if they marry, if they have kids, if they have sex. Break one of these and people will raise an eyebrow. Break two and they look at you weird. Break three and everyone judges you. Break all of them and, suddenly, you and your partner have been declared "just friends" by outsiders who don't know you in the slightest.

Welcome to amatonormativity.

Or, better saying, another stupid box, another set of rules.

There's this headcanon that Crowley kisses Aziraphale as a last resort not because it's a gesture if love (even Neil said it wasn't out of love) but because he's seen it in human movies and, in movies, kissing someone in despair is a cliché that often ends in the other person not leaving.

This wasn't a love kiss. But Crowley still loves Aziraphale. Do you know why?

Because angels and demons, most likely, do not need human gestures to show love. They, most likely, comprehend love in an entirely different light.

Maybe Aziraphale is touchy with Crowley because he likes it and that is a good enough reason, but it's an individual reason, just like a person irl might be more fond of hugging their partner than kissing them, and that's fine. Nothing wrong with it. There's no right or wrong way to have a relationship. Acting like there is is reinforcing the rules set by amatonormativity, and it is also completely disregarding the experiences of asexual and aromantic folk. The entire spectrums btw.

Now think about the rules I mentioned earlier. Must kiss, must fuck, must marry etc.

Aziracrow also breaks almost all of them.

That's also queer as hell!!!

Being queer and celebrating pride isn't about having labels. It's about breaking societal norms: heteronormativity, cisnormativity, mononormativity, amatonormativity, etc. Norms that are used to opress us, to put us in boxes, to separate us, to marginalize us, and to kill us.

A show that gives the middle finger to all of these and just tells its story however way it likes, not caring about labeling the characters or having a long monologue about homophobia or showing a explicit sex scene between the two characters or following any of those stupid rules imposed by society, a society ran by cishet folk, is as queer as a show can ever be.

To deny that is to reinforce a narrative that is literally used to opress us.

That's all, bye.

Also, some of you guys are giving "I call beez she/her because of the actress" and that's cringe, but not surprising, ngl.

[molsno]

Your post on transandrophobia was the first time i'd heard of it and it from just reading your post it made sense why it couldn't be real. But i didnt want to adopt a new belief against something without looking into why people are for it. Upon reading many other posts and doing a bunch of thinking i now have a few thoughts on your post id appreciate your input on as you seem understanding and extremely well-read

please correct me if i'm wrong, but your argument against transandrophobia is that transandrophobia as the combination of androphobia/misandry and transphobia (to mirror transmisogyny being a combination of misogyny and transphobia) cannot exist because androphobia/misandry does not exist

you are completely correct that misandry does not exist in the same systemic way that misogyny does, it would be idiotic to argue otherwise, but our current system of gender stereotypes/expectations does also negatively impact men. Men are seen as inherently violent, dangerous, emotionless, and too sexual. (ie. men aren't belived when victims of rape bc/they must've enjoyed it, men are more likely to be incarcerated)

Men's Rights Activists and people like them were wrong in believing they suffered more than women and that women gaining rights was the cause of their suffering, but they did correctly identify that men also suffered from the patriarchy (and im forever gonna be salty that they were so close to understanding but instead of engaging in solidarity they decided to be misogynist about it)

When combined with other forms of oppression the often excused or ignored negative associations with masculinity are viewed as horrible problems

For example black men have to constantly make themselves less threatening when near white women because it is assumed they have malicious intent. Historically many many black men have been lynched in order to 'protect' white women. Yes it was very much racism, but it wasn't a coincidence that black men were the victims far more than black women.

Lesbians have historically been seen as inherently masculine therefore dangerous and predatory. The same associations now are used to justify transwomen being banned from women's spaces because they must be inherently masculine therefore inherently sexually predatory.

There is a narrative that Testosterone should be avoided for transmascs because it will make them into ugly violent monsters.

In specifically queer spaces there is often a strong stigma against being proud to be masculine. Which makes sense as most of the groups and people who have been openly proud of their masculinity before have been actively advocating for the elimination of queer people, but masculinity in itself is not anti-queer and shouldn't be treated as such.

There are many transmasc struggles seperate from transfem struggles that could potentially be more accurately described as an intersection of misogyny and transphobia, such as the infantilization and denial of control over our bodies, but because transfem people have established transmisogyny as a term to talk about their struggles and because there are several struggles resulting from our specifically trans masculinity, transandrophobia was chosen instead to not encroach on transfem's space while still having the ability to speak about our struggles.

thank you if you actually spent the time to read this and i genuinely hope you have a great day :]

thank you for being open to criticism with these ideas but oof, there's a lot to unpack here. frankly, I find it a little hard to believe you'd never heard the word transandrophobia before, considering you're regurgitating all of its talking points. you say that misandry doesn't exist at a systemic level, but then all of these points are framed as if it does. we'll go through that, but first, some foundations:

our current gender system may negatively impact men in a few narrow circumstances, but it is ultimately self-inflicted (even if some women do uphold it), and still benefits them. men are perceived as violent, dangerous, and too sexual because they continue to perpetuate a gender system that oppresses women with sexual violence. still, to this day, marital rape is not punished with the same severity as non-marital rape. still, to this day, women stay in abusive relationships out of fear that their boyfriends/husbands will commit acts of violence against them if they try to leave.

do you understand? violence, and ESPECIALLY sexual violence, is a tool men wield to maintain power, sometimes over other men, but especially over women. they wield this tool voluntarily because it benefits them, even if it does have its drawbacks in some circumstances. violence is punishable under the law, which is why men who perpetrate violence against other men tend to be incarcerated at higher rates than men who perpetrate violence against women. after all, women aren't considered full human beings with equal rights, so violence against them isn't a severe offense. our society was structured around the premise that women are men's property with which they can do whatever they want. that's why, for instance, when men are raped by women, they aren't believed; the very concept of a woman wielding sexual power over men is unthinkable in the eyes of society.

misogyny is one of the oldest forms of oppression - it's existed since nearly the dawn of society itself, and has existed in cultures all over the world for thousands of years. as a result, it is baked into the very foundation of society. if your analysis of gendered systems doesn't begin from this basic fact, then your analysis is incorrect.

certainly, men uphold very rigid, overly-restrictive notions of masculinity which can harm them in some cases, but this "toxic masculinity" as it's come to be known is really just a means of threatening other men with transmisogyny. I've written a whole post about it here.

with all of that out of the way, let's go through the rest of your examples of supposed misandry one by one.

first, while you are correct that there is a long history of violence being enacted upon black men because they are perceived as a threat to white women, the cause of this phenomenon is just racism. as you will recall in an earlier paragraph, I stated that men are perceived as violent and dangerous because they uphold a system of sexual ownership over women. any man that may pose a threat to another man's ownership over a woman must be punished with violence. now, black people regardless of gender are seen as hypersexual in this white supremacist society, so when it comes to black men in particular, they are perceived as being more likely to threaten a white man's ownership over a white woman - hence the amount of violence they face.

now, I need to say, I'm white, and while I do my best to learn about racism and how it intersects with other forms of oppression, my understanding will always be limited by my privilege as a white person. I've never experienced racism and I never will, so I don't have the full nuance to explain this topic in particular that comes with lived experience. that being said, I find it very callous and cruel that transandrophobia truthers repeatedly use the violence black men face as "proof" of their beliefs, especially because they act like black women aren't also subjected to racist violence, which they very much are. here's a thread by two black bloggers about this topic that I think discusses this phenomenon better than I ever could - be sure to check the read more link in it.

moving on, your point about lesbians and trans women (note the space) is, frankly, extremely insulting. misandry is not a part of my oppression. people don't hate me because I'm masculine, they hate me because I'm a tranny. they hate me SPECIFICALLY because I reject manhood in its entirety. they hate me because my very existence calls into question the validity of the assumptions that 1. there are two opposite mutually exclusive genders with absolutely no overlap and 2. manhood and masculinity is inherently superior to womanhood and femininity. that's why they portray people like me as a threat to cis women. if I'm free to exist in the way that makes me happiest, then the gender system that gives men absolute unchecked power over women will crumble. lesbians are also reviled and viewed as predatory for their rejection of subservience to men and their attraction to women, which - again, threatens men's control over them.

I'm going to go out of order here and address your point about queer spaces being hostile to masculinity. it just isn't true. I've never seen a single person provide an adequate explanation for how there is a stigma in queer spaces against masculinity that wasn't just lesbophobia and transmisogyny in disguise. it always boils down to "waah lesbians and trans women are mean to men and people who like men :(", a la this post.

now, last but not least, your points about transmascs. they're discouraged from transitioning because we live in a transphobic society. there is nothing unique about that. transfems are subjected to the exact same rhetoric.

transmascs do not experience an intersection of transphobia and misogyny. they may experience both of these, but they are not intersecting, and any assertion to the contrary demonstrates an abysmal understanding of intersection, whether willfully or not. I've already written another post about this exact topic.

I hope this was helpful, but for future reference, I'm going to say this: most women are not going to be so patient and understanding when you approach them with a giant wall of text asking them to explain misogyny to you. I did not have to do any of this for you, and you shouldn't expect me to. I've already written and reblogged many posts about the topics you've brought up here, as you've seen, and you could have easily found most of them by looking through my writing and transmisogyny tags. I hope you have a good day, but please do not do this again.

[pinkandpurple360]

I apologize in advance if this gets gets long, just the convo around the next ep of HB has got me annoyed and it hasn't even come out yet

(So I'm mostly talking around the talking points screencapped here: https://www.tumblr.com/chaifootsteps/749126531306160128/apparently-im-lying-about-being-molested-when-i?source=share and your reblog from earlier where Viv liked this tweet: https://twitter.com/lovelyzelda2/status/1784606963583668469?s=46)

I had a bad feeling the discourse would immediately switch positions to 'see? Blitzo enjoys having sex with Stolas! how can you call it extortion when he's clearly fine with it?' (goalposts moving yet again, but anyway...)

OK, so - just a few teeny, tiiiiny problems with this statement here

Compartmentalization. It's entirely possible (and rational) for someone to talk themselves into believing the scenario they've been forced into is 'not that bad', just for their own mental stability

Taking power back. When someone has no power in a situation they'll take what little scraps they can get even if it looks like it makes no rational sense to an outsider. Blitzo is very heavily implied to be the 'top' in the relationship, which allows him to feel like he has some modicum of power, even if all he's doing is being the one to put in all the work to meet Stolas' needs. Paradoxically this can go hand in hand with a learned helplessness - if someone mentally accepts they are trapped in a scenario they might focus on trying to 'make the best of it' rather than escape the situation, which people on the outside struggle to understand

Hypersexuality. Related to the above, Blitzo uses sex as a tool to get what he wants. He's been conditioned by society at a young age to understand imps have little value and that survival means a lack of autonomy over one's own body and time - both things he's had to give up to Stolas to survive. It says a lot when we use the one of the survival mechanisms of an underclass as a means to judge them rather than the system that created it. (And interesting again that calling out the ways the rich literally screw over the poor is one of the main things used to demonize Striker as The Bad Guy). Also saying Blitzo enjoyed the one night stand then is flimsy evidence he's fine with the full moon deal now - he might be more sexually compatible with Stolas than Chaz (not a high bar to clear) but it was clearly pity sex and he dipped and attempted to ghost Stolas right after. For him the sex would've been a one time thing if Stolas hadn't pushed it further. This type of argument is veering into shaming Blitzo for enjoying casual sex tbh, because it's arguing that that should mean he'd be happy to have sex with Stolas again every time after. Nope. Consent works on a situation to situation basis. Being up for it Monday is not a promise you'll be up for it Friday - Blitzo having a one night stand with Stolas is not some kind of invisible 'IOU more sex'

Retconning. Yet again, but it shouldn't go unmentioned. Most of Blitzo's attitude to Stolas' flirting has been annoyance or rejection in season 1, indifference right after their session in Harvest Moon (and more annoyance/rejection to Stolas demeaning him in public at the festival), one tiny suggestion of enjoying their activities in Truth Seekers (and even that can be argued to be just Blitzo enjoying exerting power of Stolas and following through with what he sees as his end of the bargain - Stolas certainly doesn't correct him that he expects Blitzo to reward Stolas for rescuing his life with sex, since sex is all Stolas ever wants out of him), then Ozzie's caps it all off with Blitzo telling Stolas he has some nerve to expect to play at boyfriends when all he's wanted all season long is sex. That's an entire season of Blitzo's attitude towards sex with Stolas being pretty darn consistent

An abuser cannot be X. One of the most pernicious suggestions - moving on to the tweet of Stolas pathetically shutting himself in the fridge, the implication on his side is that someone who is a "manipulative mastermind" must look a certain way. They certainly aren't the kind of person who cries, sobs and shuts himself in a fridge! Never mind that 'I'm so pathetic & harmless, how could you do this to me?' can most definitely be a manipulation tactic.

This is incredibly inline with how Spindle seems to write and see abuse - abusers are only ever these obviously evil caricatures like Stella or Crimson. (And if they have any redeeming features in their eyes, like being superficially charming like Val, they'll be babied endlessly on Xitter). Real abusers are not charismatic or pathetic wet cats, apparently.

It's a reductive and frankly pretty irresponsible line of argument, because an abuser can be anyone and look like any kind of person. How often do abusers in real life get away with it because people don't think beyond 'they seemed so nice? they seemed so charming? they were so sad, so victimized by the other party they kept crying about?'

(this kind of writing is really just a variation of the Wounded Gazelle Gambit outlined here: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WoundedGazelleGambit -> i.e. Blitzo gets annoyed/mad at Stolas for a completely understandable reason like the Full Moon deal, being talked down to & demeaned, having his boundaries pushed constanly in Loo Loo Land -> Stolas circa season 2 whines and cries -> fandom falls for the writer's gambit & decides Stolas is the victim because Blitzo is the one who looks mean and abrasive despite Stolas giving him all the reason the world to be that way toward him)

"They're in Hell!" Sorry to bring back and old classic, but I just find it interesting that when someone criticizes Stolas for the Full Moon deal the defence of 'they're in Hell, he's meant to be deeply flawed, the writers are going somewhere with it!' gets brought up, even though the writers are desperate for viewers to think Stolas is not flawed because nothing is ever his fault anymore.

And yet the 'they're in Hell!' excuse is never brought up to explain why Blitzo 'doesn't seem sad enough' that he's being exploited. Maybe because in Hell imps as a class are exploited all the time and he doesn't expect much better? Maybe because Blitzo is already trying to prove his doing better than most of his kind by starting a business? Maybe because the only way to keep that business going is appeasing Stolas?

(it's a common phenomenon that many women do not think they've ever been sexually assaulted, yet when given the defintion they say 'that has happened to me'. they just don't recognize it because of what they think SA is and a lack of education to correct that perception. someone being conditioned not to know what is happening to them is wrong doesn't make what happened to them any less wrong. what it means is no one ever gave them the words to describe it before or call it by its name)

Putting it simply, the 'they're in Hell!' line is only ever used to excuse the behavior of the abuser, yet never as a touchstone to why the victim might behave the way he does

Real life cases / economic factors. This is heavy so I'm going to keep it short but it's important to include since I think we should be fighting back against bad attitudes around consent.

So there have been real life cases of employees who were extorted for sex by their bosses. Thing is, in instances when this went on a long time it sometimes became more difficult to press charges rather than less, even though the victim had been the subject of more sexual assault and rape.

And this was precisely because people rationalized it away. They believed juries would be hostile and would naturally assume 'if you had sex that many times it can't have really been rape, even if you would have lost your job. You didn't cry and weep and scream every single time? Then it can't have been rape'

What they were failing to understand is that economic factors and differences in availability of jobs in different fields mean that some people genuinely can't 'just quit' right there and then. What they were failing to understand is that the victim had become desensitized to the pain of being violated, that they weren't crying and weeping and screaming every time their boss forced them into sex they didn't want. It's why the 'you smiled in a photo one time so you were happy' argument is such BS. People can smile and seem totally put together five minutes before a mental health meltdown when everything that's actually going on gets to be too much.

But instead of blaming a society where someone could be forced into that position, they blamed the individual. The individual was victimized not once but many times - first by their abuser, then by a society that makes it impossible to escape them, and finally by the ones who decided actual evidence was secondary to the fact that a victim suffering a death from a thousand cuts isn't bleeding out dramatically or miserably enough for their tastes.

(speaking of economic factors, Stolas has also used promising money to bodyguard him as a means of getting Blitzo's company. Blitzo spends that episode trying to do his job - 'save it, bitch, I'm working' etc - but Stolas doesn't care about respecting their exchange of money for Blitzo's labour, because what he really wanted was to inappropriately flirt with him in front of his teen daughter. he uses his wealth as further entitlement to Blitzo's time and attention)

Lastly: it's still wrong whether Blitzo 'enjoys it' or not. I feel it's important to stress that ultimately dissecting Blitzo is kind of missing the point here. Because even if Blitzo did genuinely enjoy sleeping with Stolas - if we pretend season 1 didn't happen - it doesn't make what Stolas did any less wrong. There's a reason why sometimes a case will be 'the state VS accused rapist/person who committed domestic violence' i.e. the state prosecuting on a victim's behalf. And that's precisely because the victim is too close to it or is too afraid of the abuser to be expected to press charges. Blitzo can't exactly freely answer the sentence 'did Stolas wrong me? would I have slept with him if I'd had a choice?' if the answer stands to lose him his company, can he?

Put it another way:

Character A uses the fact Character B's life is in danger to get them to agree to a deal where they have sex once a month so Character B can keep their job. Character B is clearly repulsed but later seems to enjoy their monthly meetings. Did Character A do anything wrong?

Describing that scenario outside of the context of Stolas being a sad weepy owl, would anyone hesitate to condemn Character A here? B's 'enjoyment' doesn't change that the initial act was wrong - despite hating fanfics so much, the "it wasn't really rape because the victim secretly enjoyed it" thing is a line pulled straight out of fanfic where the original scenario where the couple 'hooked up' is dubcon at best, rape at worst. it's the last refuge of writers who want to include dubcon elements but don't want to deal with how bad it makes the perp look in the eyes of the reader

It seems obvious to me that the writers wanted Stol!tz to be a messy friends with benefits to lovers, catching feelings type of thing. But they didn't write it that way. And no amount of crowbarring it into that 'it's just miscommunication!' trope will fix the fact that they wrote and animated a sequence in Murder Family where Blitzo clearly doesn't want to say yes to Stolas and would have said no if he'd had an option at that moment

(though at this rate HB will attempt to do the Bad Fanfic trope of 'I secretly wanted it all along!' because retconning everything that happened in s1 is the only way they can think of to 'fix' Stolas without actually, you know - fixing Stolas)

Tl:dr; I'm frustrated with the lack of care in HB's writing since season 2 started, especially with how young some of the fanbase obviously are. But I'm also disappointed. They had a real opportunity to break new ground in depictions of abuse - show how someone could be simultaneously abuser and victim, show how an abuser could rationalize and rewrite reality in his favor, show how all this conflates with class and wealth in an intractable way, show how victims can rationalize their own abuse, etc etc - and they chose to do none of it.

Forcing a ship was just more important than any kind of compassion for their audience (or their literal main character, soon to be demoted to Stolas' sidekick and Emotional Support Imp), so instead all abuse is in the show is either an excuse for cheap drama or a means to attempt to rehabilitate its most frustrating character by pointing at someone else as being 'worse than him' while he's actively treating the one he supposedly 'loves' like garbage

🗣️ i love long essay length anons like this they’re like crack to me.

That last part is getting to me like how is this pairing gonna look when it happens? Like a prince and his obedient minion who serves and protects him from mean women and children, and never gets too feisty or asking too many questions. That’s the end image in my head.

Edit: anon, you care more than the writers do I can promise you that

[bonefall]

I don't understand he/him lesbians, I'm friends with a few lesbians and they all say it's harmful to lesbians for someone who identifies as male to call themselves a lesbian, is this right? If you're not comfortable explaining that's ok! I just saw you answered an ask with it and I wanted someone else's opinion? I'm not too keyed in on sexuality and genders and stuff (I'm a bi cis woman) but I'm trying to learn more to be more considerate to the people around me and stuff

Hey, if you're reaching out and seeking advice on the topic, that is good for me!

I will not do this very often though just because I want this blog to be a place for funny battle cats and general celebrations of queerness, but for you, I will give you a brief rundown and some good links to further reading if you'd like to learn more.

So this sentence is aimed at everyone who is not this anon; my stance is not negotiable and the block button is my best friend. Do not use this post to argue. Thank you.

It is not correct that people who identify with masculinity cannot use the term lesbian.

Queerness isn't about rigid boxes and fitting ourselves into them, that's what we're supposed to be against!

Lesbians are people who identify in some way with femininity and have sapphic affections for other feminine people. I've met agender (no gender) lesbians, genderfluid (gender isn't rigid and shifts like liquid) lesbians, demigender (sort-of feels gender but not much) lesbians, multigender (identifies with multiple genders possibly including masculinity) lesbians, so on.

I have even known a transgender man who found the label better described his relationship to women than the term 'heterosexual.' When asked why, he described it as, "I don't love women the way other men do." Even though he was no longer a woman, he still felt a connection to femininity that he felt was best described as sapphic.

A person's relationship to gender can be a very complex and multifaceted thing. In fact this complexity is why I personally use the term genderqueer.

When a homophobic chucklefuck says, "Uhuhuh im a lesbian like u because i also like women what now" What they're doing is being disrespectful. That is what is harmful about that. They do not care that you say, "Ah, well, a lesbian is only women who like other women!" because now you've given them a foot in the door to shave women down into rigid boxes of femininity to fit stupid binary rules.

TERFs have used this in the past to divide our community. Our enemies do not care that our terms "make sense." They just want us gone.

Pronouns don't always equal gender.

Just like how I mentioned that there are masculine people who can identify in some part with femininity without being women, the same thing can happen with people who are women and feel a connection to masculinity, or something else entirely.

Lesbians using he/him pronouns goes back for decades, even centuries. Some would use these pronouns to pass as men (and may have been what we'd call transgender men with modern terms), while others feel a strange relationship to their assigned gender through their sexuality, and some simply prefer he/him.

He/him lesbians, they/them lesbians, xe/xir lesbians...

Discomfort is not the only reason to change your pronouns. Disconnect is not the only way we explore ourselves. Sometimes it's pleasure!

PLEASE GO READ

(CW: The following literature is intended for adults and discusses sexuality and queer history, including oppression, violence, racism, etc.)

Female Masculinity by Jack Halberstam Talks about the history of masculinity in the lesbian community. Important book. Please read.

Butch, Femme, Dyke, Or Lipstick, Aren't All Lesbians The Same?: An Exploration Of Labels And "Looks" Among Lesbians In The U.S. South, a thesis by Denielle Kerr While this one isn't about history, it's a really good introduction to the discussion in general since you specifically mentioned not knowing much about these issues. It touches on a bunch of popular queer theories in a way applicable to lesbians specifically, like performance theory, bodywork, intersectionality... Just follow the citations when you see something you'd like to know more about.

[wc-confessions]

mods dont have to post this, i am just very angry right now. id understand if this is controversial. i just want someone to hear this.

i just got off of wcue. i was a spectating. there was someone in the clan named w//ndigowisp. i am not good at confrontation, but being a native who sees ca like this every day of my life (literally.) i had an urge to actually say something. this has been something that has bothered me for a very, very long time. it is extremely personal to me.

my friend and i approached them as kindly as possible to inform them about the issue with their name. i was gentle with my wording- i know not everyone knows about the weight behind it. i know some people do not do well with being confronted.

and instantly we were told that they "knew what they were doing," and that we were making them uncomfortable. my friend pointed out that i, a native, have to be uncomfortable with this almost all the time. we were told that it did not matter because it was fictional, even though cultural appropriation extends beyond warrior cats.

after they were told that i am a native, they started going on about how rude and mean i was being. it was at this point they were prioritizing their own comfort over respect for native culture.

the person with the name asked their friends if they could serverhop because they were getting anxious. one of their friends told me to die (through the euphemism "go to starclan") right before they left.

my friend left, but i did not. someone had politely asked for a little more elaboration after overhearing our conversation.

after that, someone brought their gaggle of friends over. 3-4 of them. they were telling me that they were cherokee, and that it was chronically online to be uncomfortable with this. all i had asked for was for them to respect native culture. i was told that i am stupid and sad for caring about this. i was told to 'let people enjoy things.' it is not just the name i am upset with. as i said before, cultural appropriation extends beyond warrior cats. ca is the last step of colonization.

you could argue that there are bigger issues. i agree. but there is nothing wrong with being uncomfortable with cultural appropriation (i cannot believe i have to say that), and you should not go after other natives for it. i did everything i could to be kind, but i am still painted as awful and mean.

i wish i could say wcue is not always like this. in my own personal experience, anti-indigenous racism runs rampant there. i have blocked most racists i see. my blocklist is almost full- roblox has a limit of 100 users. only about 10-20 are from before i started blocking them.

again, mods don't have to post this, but i am still very hurt and very angry. sorry for the long post. if, by any chance, any of those people see this- i am sorry, but i'm not going to swallow my discomfort and hurt for the sake of white comfort.

as someone who was raised to believe in the spirit in question, it IS disrespectful to be using the name - i was told from a young age to never speak the name of it due to its nature and how it will bring misfortune to both myself and my people (and because of this, i go out of my way to avoid using its name, even if censored)

i dont think these people realize that not all native americans share the same beliefs, either. there are very specific groups who believe in this spirit, primarily those of us who are from canada, the great lakes, and the appalachians (i don't believe the cherokee nation is a part of this particularly grouping, but correct me if im wrong!). that name should not have been used or even encouraged to be used. it reeks of a lack of respect for many native american cultures and cultural appropriation

having a complaint about that spirit's name being used is not "chronically online" - there is a very real and genuine belief that usage of the name will bring evil to you, and this belief has been around since before chr*st*pher c*lumbus even came to the americas. it feels like most people think "chronically online" means "bipoc bringing up racism" nowadays because they feel entitled to speak over us (as always)

i'm very sorry you had to deal with those people, anon. i myself would've been extremely paranoid about the encounter, and you have every right to be upset over what happened. i hope you are well

-mod ashensky

[popstart]

Yeah you know what i'll send G1 for sexuality and gender HCs. why not

Alejandro: Ive never sat down and thought about this but bisexual seems correct.

Beth: I think ive always operated under the assumption shes lesbian lol. brady is SUCH a comphet boyfriend

Bridgette: I have a hard time seeing her as anything but straight I cant even lie? like i love wlw bridgette ships but not in a way that I wouldn't be unsurprised if they were canonically shut down lmfao 😭😭😭I really like the lesbian bridgette hc I just cannot get behind it in a way that aligns me with actually thinking bridgette would be a lesbian

Cody: I have no opinions on what I think his sexuality is but I cannot get behind relationships between him and girls

Courtney: LESBIAN. but i do like seeing other hcs for her. I see cases for her being bi, I see cases for her being straight. shrug emoji. I do really like duncney as a ship though which throws some wrenches in that hc just a little bit lmfao

Dj: I operate in a world where Dj is a lesbian even though I dont think i seriously think that. Its just how it goes

Duncan: i have a hard time seeing him as anything other than straight. like. im sorry this guy would be so homophobic. he would use the word gay as an insult. However, i do like aleduncan. so take of that as you will (its funny and makes me laugh) he has gay friends though omg🙄🙄🙄🙄

Eva: LESBIAN. yes its stereotypical. no i dont care. shes such a dyke

Ezekiel: straight??????? idk. this isnt even a "hes sexist so he would be other flavors of bigoted" I just dont live in a universe that I think ezekiel could be queer

Geoff: bisexual except i dont think he would label it. he thinks its normal for everyone to be a little attracted to the same gender. my friend that has only seen a little bit of total drama also likes him being a trans man which i mostly find funny but i could see lmao.

Gwen: lesbiannn. I really like the hc shes a trans girl as well, or nonbinary. im fine with either of those. regardless she is not cishet in any fashion. i genuinely think she is very very lesbian coded aligned because the way she behaves with men in the show is just???? so strange? i dont think it was intentional from the producers though which has me hesitant to mark it as actually "coded". Also i so seriously believe she was one sided crushing on courtney in all stars. why is she so weird. like im not a big gwourtneyer but wanting to impress a girl that bad teeters into "theres no straight explanation for this" territory

Harold: idk. trans in some direction. last year I remember seeing one of those your fave is posts and it was transbian harold and i remember laughing so hard bc i wasnt in the fandom at the time I had no idea someone would hc harold of all people as transbian.

Heather: trans girl lesbian though im less heavy on her being trans I just like it symbolically. saw someone forever ago say t4t gweather and I liked it a lot. her bald era was such an interesting look into her mind bc that is straight up gender dysphoria. I dislike aleheather bc i hc her as just so so lesbian.

Izzy: nonbinary unlabeled. she dgaf about labels so hard so im not gonna try to break it down either.

Justin: hes always given me gay man energy

Katie + Sadie: I love them as lesbian but i prefer them staying just friends (though im fine with the ship.)

Leshawna: Ive never thought about it. i think she plays a straight bff role very easily but she could be bi or lesbian

Lindsay: I prefer her as lesbian but I also like lyler in a way that has me thinking she could be bi. unlabeled maybe but lesbian aligned. dunno, I guess it could depend on the universe lol.

Owen: bisexual. ik this isnt "canon" but its canon enough to me.

Noah: Seeing people argue over this has me not giving a shit at all. bisexual i guess. i dont care

Sierra: i LOVE lesbian sierra. hill i'll die on is that shes a lesbian that made up a guy to crush on to try and appear normal since she has no friends in school.

Trent: i have quite literally 0 opinions on trent that are based on canon. hes a straight man

Tyler: straight to me i cant lie, but i like transfem lesbian tyler its cuteness

[meili-sheep]

so i've seen this theory that is allegedly going to be confirmed in 3.4 Basically it says that al haitham cannot feel any emotions bc he is the sole survivor/successful case of the greyscale elezar experiments run by dottore and it basically lobotomised him so he doesnt feel emotions and thats why he wants to live a quiet life as a scribe. I say a lot of kaveh/al haitham shippers talking about this on twitter as some kind of win bc aww al haitham let kaveh enter his super controlled life ect ect. 1. idk if this is an outlandish theory that has no chance of becoming canon bc i dont really have a good gage for that kind of thing so if im falling for the bait im sorry 2. I can kind of understand it for story reasons as it makes for a compelling relationship between al haitham and dottore and by extension the akademyia for allowing dottore back BUT 3. I feel really sad bc it means all that autistic coding was a concious effort to make the character LITERally unfeeling. It means all those traits I recognised in myself and in him are the result of him missing something, being less, ect. and it kinda hurts. Like obvs i never expected hoyo to come out and make him autistic in canon but it just feels like another autistic coded character that is coded that way because they are missing something fundamentally human. Whether thats an android, alien, puppet ect. Idk you are one of the few people on here ive seen talk about al haitham being autistic coded so i wanted to get your thoughts -@under-wcrlds

ahahahahahha

Yeah. (Genshin talk start at paragraph 4)

I've actually mentioned in a previous post that I don't want Al Haitham to be any kind of inhuman character because he's so humanity autistic. Like in particular, he feels a lot like my brand of autism. Because here is the thing. I'm not academically gifted. But I'm incredible with patterns. I'm very good at seeing the patterns of life and being able to predict on only people's responses but emotional responses without knowing them. And I have the same goals as Al Haitham. I want to live a simple and comfy life. Do no more work than needed, and then do what interests me. I have also turned down big leadership positions because that's not what I want to do.

And guess what. I'm a real fucking person. Yeah, I've been through some shit. But that didn't make me this way, and everyone goes through it at one point or another.

But I've always been like this. Fuck, my mom had me (at a young age) start packing the car on trips because I could just see where everything was supposed to be. I was never one who could express my emotions well. I still struggle with that, and I feel a lot of the time, I come across as a know-it-all? And attention-hogging because I just talk in a sort of weird antidotal way.

This also makes me a good storyteller because I can give a more natural flow of events. So let me country why I don't think this theory is gonna be correct.

in the 3.2 stories. Al Haitham did say he understands and knows the importance of emotions and makes it clear that he's not really the type who is good a motivating people through emotion. Never did he make any reference to not being able to feel them. Fuck I'd argue he'd have to have them to understand what the mad Scholars were feeling to imitate them as well as he did.

Also, there isn't really a reason to re-pick up the elezar plotline, as it has been pretty solidly dealt with. Like it's gone, there's no reason to look more into it. We know what causes it and what cured it. Like if they are to bring Dottore up again, it will be for another story and another experiment. Also, Dottore isn't the type to pick up something again once his interest in it is gone. Heck, look at Scaramouch. Plus, Dottore had Collie. Like that's confirmed. And seemingly, Dottore knew how to keep elezar at bay. So there wouldn't be much reason for him to expand experimentation. Let long a reason to make someone stop feeling emotions.

The TDLR is that there really wouldn't be many benefits for Dottore if this was the case, and that feels outta character. Also, we don't know Al Haitham's timeline, just that he graduated, which apparently is really hard to do and takes a lot of time.

And a point that's just hit me.

LISA WANTS TO LIVE A SIMPLE LIFE. And She's objectively waaaaaay smarter than Al Haitham is. So again, it's not a good reason?

Idk man. I'm a little heated under the collar because I HATE when people try and make an autistic-coded character nonhuman. Because I'm a human.

[chawarin-panich]

Okay I’ve seen a lot of people talking about this and I’m really confused about this part of what you wrote: “literally watch a man starve 2.2 million people, pass on using his executive power to help debt ridden folks of his own country but use it to send weapons to kill the 2 million people he's starving.”

How is Biden starving Palestinians? Isn’t he the American president? So isn’t it Israel that’s starving Palestinians, not Biden?

I thought Biden was telling Israel to send more aid to Palestinians, like that was what I’ve seen on the news, so I don’t get how him arguing for more aid is him personally starving Gazans. That seems like the opposite of personally starving them but idk

I also thought Biden tried hard to get debt forgiveness but it was Republicans who blocked it and basically they couldn’t do anything else. Like I thought they tried but it was impossible.

What’s the deal? Clearly you think things really differently than me and I’m sure you have reasons/other information sources, would you mind explaining your thought process?

shocked that I actually got a genuinely curious anon and not like death threats lol 1) Biden is a Zionist. 2) Biden just cut funding to the UNWRA in retaliation to the ICJ ruling. Officially, it's because Israel [obviously the most trustworthy country/sarcasm] claims that 7 members of the UNWRA were part of Hamas. These are not proved allegations. Here is a post on how integral the UNWRA is to the survival of Palestinians 3) The US President has the power to use something called the executive order - basically it's a way to bypass congress and must only be used for Very Important Things. You are correct that when Dems tried to move forward with debt forgiveness they were blocked by Republicans and we were told that this issue is not Important Enough to invoke an executive order. And maybe it genuinely isn't im not 100% familiar with the legality parameters of what can or cannot be achieved with an executive order. But what was the Very Important Thing he DID sign an executive order for? That's right selling weapons to Israel Congress's decision to block weapons sale to Israel was aligned with Biden's OWN CONSTITUENTS.

He betrayed the very people that VOTED for him to do this.

[petefromarma]

You can (and should) laugh at me for this, but am I the only one who prefers that the band hasn't said anything about gaza because I'm lowkey terrified I wouldn't like what I hear if they did? Like I breathed a sigh of relief when I saw Andy was part of a fundraiser for the palestinian children's relief fund because it was semi-solid evidence that the other guys felt similarly but it's still not concrete evidence, and if any of them had opinions more in line with Gabe's it would both break my heart and absolutely ruin the fandom for me, and I can't change how they feel so I would rather just not know, and I am absolutely aware that makes me a coward but I was also too cowardly to ask my immediate family what they thought for MONTHS even though I was 90% sure they would agree with me and I have not said a DAMN thing at work either because I really don't trust my coworkers. I KNOW its awful and cowardly, but if (just in case) their opinions are bad I just dont want to fucking hear them. (This is stupid and you dont have to publish it btw, I dont even know what im trying to accomplish here besides process a feeling I've been having this whole time and feel guilty about HAVING, let alone expressing.)

putting this under a read more bc it’s long

so let me preface this by saying that i am not under the impression that fob minus andy are active zionists or anything as they have not given me a reason to believe such a thing; that being said, i think that at this point, at their level of celebrity, that silence is complicity, to a degree. this can be said for anyone with a platform who has not spoken up, at this point. and imo pete’s silence plus him/his family still being close with biden is already not…great. he should have experienced far more backlash than he did from the fandom for attending that white house party; people let up on him because he deleted the post which as i’ve said before was the right thing to do but that doesn’t take away from the fact that he did go.

gabe rightfully got his ass handed to him and ik everyone has different levels of what they’ll tolerate, but to me the white house incident was pretty fucking bad and i was surprised no one came for pete even half as hard. i understand the bidens are his family friends or whatever but at this point it cannot be ignored that the man himself is a genocidaire. so.

anyway i understand your anxiety, i think it’s normal to be upset at the thought that the individuals responsible for something you’ve invested a large amount of your life in are not good people. regardless, and i hope this doesn’t sound harsh, but i would suggest trying to come to terms with the possibility that the other three maybe do not have the best or most correct opinions re palestine; i don’t think any of them, as i said, have actively horrific beliefs, but to me their passiveness (as well as pete’s continued involvement with the bidens) is itself a moral failing.

idk there’s a lot to be said on this topic re complicity and celebrities in general but that would be too much for me to get in to tonight. i think it’s also necessary to remember that this is far bigger than fob which is part of why i was saying i don’t understand why we’re not flooding their insta comments since most of foblr seems to be involved with pro palestinian initiatives to some degree. idk i suppose it can be argued that swifties are just “badly behaved” or whatever but like i said i see a good amount of them every day mentioning that she STILL hasn’t said anything and i feel like we could be doing the same not just with fob but with other bands in the scene like mcr.

anyway re also the stuff in your personal life; i think knowing how to phrase things to people who are not within the leftist sphere who have been propagandized to all of their lives is also an important part of activism and you don’t necessarily have to go full throttle all at once. if you need resources let me know and i’ll find you some

[cutecherrygirl]

Rage -Pt.2

Check out pt.1

Go to part 1 for more info about what's happening<3

"I ran out of mercy for you a century ago," Hyunjin said loudly. He finally let go of your chin. "What do you remember about today?" Asked you.

You spoke tiredly, like a child reciting a hated lesson. "Today was the Founder's Day celebration." You looked at Hyunjin wrapping your fingers around his. That was all you could remember, but it wasn't enough. Irritated, you tried to remember something else.

"Someone was in the restaurant... Chaeryeong." You happily offered him that name. "She was going to read my diary in front of everyone, and that was bad, because..." You messed with the memory and lost it. "I don't remember why. But we outsmarted her." You smiled warmly at him conspiratorially.

"Oh, 'we' did it, didn't we?"

"Yes. You got it out of her. You did it for me." The fingers of your free hand slipped under his jacket, searching for the hardness of the square bound book. "Because you love me," you said finding it and lightly scratching it. "You really love me, don't you?"

A faint sound was heard from the middle of the clearing. You turned to see that Seungmin had turned his face away from you.

"Y/N. What happened next?" Hyunjin's voice called you back.

"Then? Then Aunt Jihyo started arguing with me." You thought deeply about it for a moment and finally shrugged. "Oh...nothing. I got angry. She's not my mother. She can't tell me what to do."

Hyunjin's voice was cold. " I think that won't be a problem anymore. What happened after that"

You sighed heavily. "Then I went and got Chan's car. Chan." You said the name thinking, flicking your tongue over your fangs. In your mind's eye you saw a handsome face, black hair, strong shoulders. "Chan."

"And where did you go with Chan's car?"

"To Wickery bridge", Seungmin said turning back towards you. His eyes were inconsolable.

"No, to your house", You corrected him irritated. "To wait for....hmm.I forgot. Anyways, I waited there. And then....the storm started. Wind, rainz all that. I didn't like it. I got into the car. But something was following me."

"Somone followed you", Says Seungmin while watching Hyunjin.

"Some thing ", You insisted. You had enough of his interruptions. "Lets get away from here, just us", you said to Hyunjin, kneeing down so your face was closer to his.

"In a moment", he said. " What thing followed you?"

You leaned back angry. " I dont know what thing! It was like something I never saw before. Not like you and Seungmin. It was...." The images ripped through your mind. A mist that flowed along the ground. Screaming wind. Some form, white, huge, looked as if it was itself made of mist. He was catching up with you like a cloud driven by the wind.

"Maybe it was just part of the storm" you said. "But I thought it wanted to hurt me. I got away though." Fidgeting with the zipper of Hyunjin's leather jacket you sneakily giggled and looked up at him through your lashes.

For the first time, Hyunjin's face showed an emotion. His lips lift up forming a smile. "You git away."

"Yes. I remember what....somone....told me about running water. Evil things cannot cross it. So I drove to the river Drowning, to the bridge. And then...." You hesitated frowing, trying to find some solid memory. Water. You remember water. And someone screaming. But nothing else, " and then I crossed it", you figured out, excitedly. "Im sure I did, because im here now. And that's it. Can we go now?"

Hyunjin didn't answer.

"The car is still in the river", says Seungmin. Him and Hyunjin looked at each other like two parents discussing over head of their child that doesn't understand, and their hostility was forgotten for a moment. You felt a burst of resentment. You opened your mouth, but Seungmin continued. "Yeji, Lia and I found it. I swam under water and came to her, but by then...."

By then what? You frowned.

Hyunjin's lips squirmed ironically. "And you gave up on her? You, out of all people, should've assumed what could happen. Or that thought was so repulsive that you couldn't even observe it? Would you rather that's she's really dead?"

"She didn't had pulse, she didn't breath!" Seungmin yelled. "And she never had enough blood to change!" His eyes hardened. " At least not from me."

You opened your mouth again, but Hyunjin placed two fingers on them to shush up. He said deceptively: "Thats the problem now - or you are forced to see this? You told me to check her: check for yourself. She's in shock, irrational. Oh, yes, even Im admitting to it." He stopped and smiled brightly before he continued. "Thats not just a normal confusion after transformation. She will need blood, human blood, or her body won't have the power to finish the transformation. Sje will die."

What do you mean irrational? You tought angry. "I am fine", you saud through Hyunjin's fingers. "Im tired, thats all. I was going to bed before I heard you guys fighting and I cane to help. And then you didn't even let me kill him", You finished bitterly.

"Yes, why didn't you?" Says Seungmin. He watched Hyunjin motionless so he could look through him. Any sign of cooperation from his side disappeared. "That would ne the easiest."

Hyunjin shot him a look, suddenly furious; his hostile mood rising to confront Seungmin. He was breathing fast and shallow. "Maybe I dont like getting things the easy way", he hissed. Then he looked like he got his self control back. His lips curled mockingly: "Lets say like this, dear brother: if anyone will had the honour to kill you, that will be me. No one else. I'm planning to take care of that job personally. And I assure you, thats something im really good at."

"You proved it", Seungmin saud quietly, like his every word made him nauseous.

"But this one", Hyunjin said turning to you with shiny look in his eyes, "Didn't kill her. Why would I? I could've turn her whenever I wanted to."

"Maybe because she just got engaged with somone else."

Hyunjin lifted your hand, still wrapped around his. The ring was shining on third finger, decorated with big blue stone. You frowned at it, not understanding how you didn't saw it before. Then you shrugged your shoulders and leaned on Hyunjin.

"So", says Hyunjin while looking at you," that doesn't seem like a problem, right? I think she would be happier if she forgets about you." He lifted his gaze towards Seungmin witn awkward laugh. "But we will find out as soon as she gets to her sense. After that, maybe we could ask her who is she going to Choose. You agree?"

Seungmin shook his head. "How can you even offer that? After everything that happened...." His voice trailed off.

"With Ryujin? I can say it if you cant. Ryujin choose stupidly and payed for her choice. Y/N is different; she knows what she wants. But, it doesn't matter if you agree or not", he added, respecting Seungmin's new protests. "The fact is that now she is weak and needs blood. I will make sure she gets it, and then I will find out who did this to her. You can come but dont need to. Its up to you."

He straightened up and pulled you towards him. "Lets go."

[branmer]

thinking about sm

thinking about that post that's like 'we're not designed to be aware of so many people's opinions' and it really is just so true. i think it really contributes to the constant stress and fatigue people get from social media. on top of that, while obviously a big part of being a mature adult is being able to deal with people disagreeing with you, imo i don't think it's healthy to live in this constant state of not knowing if some random post you make is going to set off someone's trap card and suDDENLY you're in the middle of a discourse you had no interest in starting

im comparing it with my experience of my family because i know a big reason i have such bad anxiety is from growing up with a family that is 50% religious zealots who think they have to argue on behalf of god, and 90% obnoxious know it alls who have to be Right about everything and need to make sure they are Seen to be Right and that you are Seen to be Wrong (even when they're literally saying the same thing as you but just wording it differently), and by god it is so fucking exhausting to deal with (and yes i can see those traits in myself too and i hate it and it is one of the things i like least about myself). the difference is that i know my family well enough now to know how to navigate that more effectively these days and reduce a lot of those stressers by simply avoiding topics i know will cause family discourse and set particular people off. doesn't always work, especially with my eldest brother who is just... sigh, but it's made things easier

but with social media a lot of the time you don't even necessarily know your mutuals well enough to garner what seemingly minor thing might suddenly set off a disagreement, let alone all the complete strangers that follow you or randomly come across your post and like, idk maybe im just a big baby but i just think it cannot be healthy for us to be constantly braced for argument or disagreement over every single little thing. i know that wasn't good for me growing up because it undermined my trust in my own faculties and made me a very indecisive and uncertain person (i perhaps don't seem this from what you see here, but i really am). i basically go around constantly second guessing myself because i was told constantly growing up that i was wrong about everything, even when i was correct and could prove it, and that uh, really destroys your confidence. like god, having to justify yourself constantly to people who can never be pleased is so fucking soul destroying. no one is built for this. it is not good for you

[mach1ne-g1rl]

Saw your most recent post on dhmis and tma and I've got opinions to say I believe Computers is an Eye episode because Colin's whole deal is stealing personal info and being smart but its not my strongest I see Jobs as a buried because while it doesn't involve much claustrophobia its more about harmful workplaces and overworking which ties in with the buried in a symbolic sense. I will argue so strongly Death is an End episode. The End is LITERALLY the fear of death smh. While I can see the argument its a Stranger because of Stain Edwards the theme of death is so strong that it isn't that relevant. I see Family as both Stranger and Corruption, Stranger because the whole episode feels very uncanny with the design of the family and set being a "real" place. It's also Corruption because the episode is about toxic family relations. I still cannot believe how you thought Friendship was originally a Vast episode. While I can see why you would assign it Lonely it's clearly a Corruption, it's literally about toxic friendships. Also bugs. Tbh i don't know what to assign to Transport my closest guess is Vast but my argument isn't very strong Electricity is a hard one, I don't think i can assign it to one entity. I think Electracey is a Extinction avatar because she's a robot and the "everything in the home will be plugged in and part of the electric family" line. I could see Charged Yellow being either Eye, Stranger or Extinction. Eye because he's want to find the truth and also green eyes, Stranger because Yellow gets replaced, and Extinction because he gets replaced using specifically technology. The power outage is probably Dark because darkness. Lesley is a Web avatar, I will fight you on this. She's controlling them, she's the literal puppet master. You said that Lesley isn't the main one pulling the string making her less Web aligned but I would argue that makes her MORE web aligned because she's knows she's not fully in control. I interpret becoming a web avatar as not only being manipulative, but accepting your lack of free will. As Annabelle said in 147, "let it never be said that I do not dance the steps I am assigned." Sorry this is long and probably sounds a little rude i just have very strong opinions on tma and dhmis have a lovely day

COmputer being eye was also on my first post but i removed it bc i didnt think it was part of the big Fear factor ? but the way you phrased it does make it work

jobs being buried makes sense too !! my main reason for it being spiral is just Duck calling everything out and then Also going weird ? and then going back to "this is all wrong" very strongly (also the episode is reminiscent of Sculptor's Tool to me with only duck pointing out how this is Odd)

death SHOULD be end ur right , i just didnt think anyone in dhmis seemed very scared of the Death there ? so i thought it wasnt very important but Yeah when you mention it its definitely end ty (Or desolation bc it also feels like . theyre more focused on the grief of losing someone n not the Fear of Death ? if that makes sense=? but i dont rly get the End and Desolation anyway so)

CORRUPTION FOR FAMILY IS SO RIGHT i think i considered corruption for it at one point but i second guessed myself enough to remove it again . and stranger never reallly seemed correct to me but it was the closest and i had no one to discuss with so i ran with it:sob:

IM SORRYY LSITEN OK i hadnt listened to tma in full when i made the first list. i just read the entities wiki page and heard season 5 ..!!!! honestly idk if i agree with corruption bc , while thats probably the deeper meaning of the episode (toxic friends) warren always seemed like just an autistic asshole to me so i never saw the whole . toxic thing ? and he never really actually seemed friends with any of them ?? yea taking advantage of their kindness but i wouldnt call it a toxic relationship bc there never Was a Relationship to me (probably factually wrong n im being ignorant here but its my list and blehh :P im biased towards warren) and im probably just forgetting something bc i havent rewatched it in a while but are there bugs besides warren (are worms bugs)?

transport i assigned Web bc red guy being like . aware of the whole They're Trapped There thing and trying to escape and Lonely bc they're trying to get to other people/ civilization/ community but are just . stuck ? and in some episodes the lonely just takes ppl to endless places that they cant leave (cul-de-sac is the only one i remember) and it just (again) reminded me of that

ELECTRICITY /SHOULLD/ be more than 1 or 2 very true but i just Really hate assigning more than 2 to these idk why ive set that rule for myself but it just feels wrong, disorderly and i dont like it . but yes i can see electracey being extinction (tbh i feel like teachers being avatars/ assinging them patrons/fears could be a whole other list itself) Charged Yellow being stranger i disagree. yes hes replaced but it feels more like . if s1 jon got replaced by s5 jon ? does that make sense ? I HAD DARK For this episode too bc the power outage but it didnt feel like a big fear factor here ? and i just didnt think it was significant enough (the dumb self-imposed rule) Lesley IS web coded i completely forgot annabelle for a second when i made this :sob: ive had too much michael on my mind and i thought being trapped wasnt enough of a theme here ? not like it was in Transport or like Dreams but yea it definitely should be Web

IM GLAD this is long i like hearing other ppls thoughts and input on this silly stuff (it did sound a little rude at times but dw i get it) I think at the end of the day the way we judge these is just Very different? Unless you disagree, i dont think the web series is this "up for debate" as the tv show is bc it just has . Less. There's maybe 3 lines at the start, then the teacher comes in and starts singing about what they embody, then the horrors and the end (only the last 3 episodes rly made me question which Power would be associated with them bc it kinda follows a plot so they could all a little be taken as web and lonely with red guy?) Theres just so many more ways the TV show can be interpreted. These could be judged on the Teacher, the Lesson, the thing that scares the characters, the thing that scares the Audience, symbolism/manifestations, etc. (i think i just went with whatever seemed the most relevant to me / what scared the characters ? but i was also being pretty inconsistent there lmao) i feel like there would probably have to be multiple lists or just one BIG list of everything that could count as one of the entities ? or maybe im blowing this out of proportion and its really simple for you, and only i struggled with this :,) either way it was fun ! and i think thats all that matters maybe the real dhmis tma entities assigning list were the friends we made along the way aww

[helloyesthisisdado]

I'm so sorry about not responding to the headcanon meme until now, never realized you reblogged it! Haha. Anyways! I imagine that dado's brand medicine and pharmaceuticals are pretty well renowned for having very sweet and remarkably pleasant tastes, given they are pharmaceuticals! Not that nasty overpowering taste of false bubblegum or the purple taste that is called grape, but rather the tamer, more delicious sweet fruity taste you can only get from actual candy and vitamin gummies. Why? Well, this is dado and trying to find a purpose behind what dado does is a pointless endeavour, but the most reasonable explanation one can get from a being like dado is due to his own tastes! dado doesn't enjoy the gross tastes of most market brand medicines, and being that dado is a being of the market, the fact he doesn't like it means that there's gotta be a bunch of people who don't like it! Hence the flavoring choices. That said though, dados medicines do have alternate tastes if you don't enjoy the fruitiness, but one could argue cold-brew coffee tasting medicines are frankly worse than the grape and bubblegum ones! Also! Robert Mitchell isn't a guinea pig; he is a hamster according to the universe he originates from, you see, in that universe intelligent and talking rodents are the norm in place of the traditional humans and have their own small society, however, this has come with the caveat (heh, get it? caveat like cavies the name for the guinea pig family? sorry) that because humans didn't name the rodents and they named themselves, the hamsters ended up calling themselves guinea pigs and the guinea pigs called themselves hampsters! It's quite an annoyance for interdimensional communication, they understand, but they are tolerant of the common mistakes! And good ol' Robert Mitchell is a proud hamster!

no worries at all i reblogged it far later then anyone else in the community because i wasn’t on at the time :( but nonetheless thx for sending me one!

anyways u would be very correct with dados medicine tasting sweet or fruity and generally pleasant tastes, banana being a common flavour due to it being dados favourite flavour, very similar to the taste of candy or even the fruits themselves! you would be right in the fact finding purpose behind what dado does is mostly a pointless endeavour and ur mostly correct with the reasoning. dado is of course a businessman and dados business can be taken away from, what better way is there to improve ur products other than trying ur competitors products? and in his little businessman mind dados thinking is “better flavour and taste = more sales”, though the banana one is definitely just because he likes banana being of the market or not, 9/10 for this one :D

there is not a lot of information on the wiki for robert mitchell apart from him being a guinea pig, not a hamster, though sadly he is not an inter dimensional guinea pig he is quite intelligent, originally a regular pet guinea pig who (in articles im pretty sure) would often accidentally eat products dado created, given intelligence through another product of his. the whole reason he refers to himself as a hamster though is because dado cannot tell the difference between hamsters and guinea pigs, originally wasn’t too fond of this and would try and correct dado which never works usually but has since warmed up to what is an honest misunderstanding, a very proud hamster indeed! 3/10 for this one, thank you again for the ask!

[hopeheartfilia]

ahhh trying to analyse what i think about mo ran's little inner monologue about liking chu wanning and not shi mei and like

:readmore:

fundamentally i do thinks there is some truth to it, like putting someone on a pedestal as pure and good isnt really about being in love.. like its you not the state of u get to the nitty gritty, if u dont like their flaws specifically do you even like them or just the idea of this perfect kind eprson youve build in your mind that cannot be sullied

but also i feel like i disagree about the. sexual aspect of it? like just because youre not horny doesnt mean you dont have a crush? but also i tried to explain what it feels like to have a crush when not hornh and im having the issue of im demiromantic and ive had one crush in my whole ass life and it was in middle school, i simply do not know enough about romantic attraction to tell you. Like i can easily say that Mo Ran isnt experiencing just sexual attraction, even if he is ridiculously horny, but like

How to explain that while yes i dont 5hink you had a crush on shi mei that its not because you dont like shimei physically? you also dont seem to enjoy spending time with shimei that much and dont seem to have many meaningfull connections with him. also also you dont seem to want to be closer to shi mei you just want him to be safe and happy and stuff? It sounds a bit likea ! hes so nice to me, sort of squish. Like when someone does somethibg really nice for you and you decide that youve pack bonded and youre gonna be extra nice to them and youre gonna be the bestest of friends

but often they end up not even being your best friend. because your bestfriend is someone who you dont get tired if being around for days in end and who you can argue but then understand each other, not just someone whos nice to you. you know.

And like Mo Ran doesnt like Chu Wanning jsut because he does somethibg nice for him, he respects jim and has the eorlds most obvious crush BeforE that, thats just when he goes Shizun care for me too? owo and then Cherish the shizun protect the shizun, and i feel like the xie sini moment of Arent I human too? Dont I hurt too? Was more important? Like figuiring out hes been fundamentally misunderstanding Chu Wanning and then finding out for himself what the guy is really liek is what does it for him, because its the understanding, its about the knowing

You can like people without knowing them but you cant love them without knowing them and being willing to learn more

Anyway im going on a tangent and i still cant tell you what the difference in the whole lvoe thing eould be between learning to love chu wanning romantically and in general is outside of he thinks all of his sharpest edges are cute? they endear shizun to him, and thats all i have because i dont remember the like. questions of that What type of attraction are you feeling? quiz that helps me work it out.

yeah i have a bit more emotional intelligence then mo ran because i spend a looot of time thinking and self analysing but also its not by much. which is partly why i find his EM of -33 so relatable. mine is zero in this metaphor, which is better but still. like at least i can tell other peoples emotions apart with a suprsingly high degree of accuracy for someone who had managed to convince themselves they cant feel guilt and it was just anger obviously, not misplaced guilt nuh uh

ah i need to figuire out hoe to add a readmore in mobile for this rant

anyway mo ran yes correct conslusion that youre head over heels for chu wanning and not in love with shi mei, but no i dont think its just because you desire him carnally, you also desire him in every other way, ehich does not seem to apply to shi mei, but i dont think youre ready for that internal "im not even sure you consider shi mei as a human person with like agency and shit and nit a prop in your backstory" conversation. Which. I do see that shi mei isnt written that way which is just.. perfection, the complexity of secondary characters in danmei is unparalleled, love it when people that arent the main couple have personalities

[ill-be-istj-if-no-one-else-is]

Hello! Enneagram 7 here. I find myself trying to like my job that can be very tough and stressful on some days just because it’s very detail oriented and if you do not have all the information that is needed to pay for an invoice then you cannot pay for it or sometimes you can but you would have to look through each invoice to find the correct one and we go as far as even creating admin fees in the system and new tolls that aren’t registered in the system and it could be as much as 50 tolls you have to individually create. I’m in this job mainly because it pays well and I learn new skills that I can get hired for by other companies. It took me atleast 1 week to understand the system SQL and what I had to do working on different lists and websites. I was stuck on ENTP & ENFP for the longest. I thought because I wanted autonomy and freedom I might be an ENFP? I remember my father telling me I couldn’t go to my own graduation because of covid and I use to cry and argue with him telling him “im going and you’re not stopping me because I’ve been waiting the longest for this” the day came and I changed my mind and stayed home. Before my brother moved out, me and him use to watch anime all the time and talk about things and go outside. I was fine when he left, but then all of a sudden I started feeling lonely. I realized I don’t even watch anime anymore ever since he left and I use to always watch it regardless. I was suppose to hang out with my friends and I couldn’t because my father was home and had me doing things. I didn’t even want to answer the phone or wanted to talk to them because of the thought of them being disappointed. Sometimes I’ll even try so hard to learn things quickly or atleast work faster so my manager would be impressed by me. I’m scared of him being disappointed in me and I really crave affirmation. There was this time I got emotional out of no where with my guy best friend because I lied to him and I told him the reason why I did it was because I missed him so much I never get to see him. It’s not hard for me to articulate my emotions it’s just hard to know what exactly am I experiencing because as soon as I feel uncomfortable I find something to distract myself so I don’t feel it anymore. I started excessively thinking about my fwb too much after hanging out because I would get super anxious and think of ways to attract him so he can flatter me. If I don’t get it from him I get upset and try to find it from other people. It was so bad I couldn’t even do my homework or think straight because I was afraid someone else was getting his attention and he was going to get bored of me. I don’t know if I ended up liking him or it was the attention I craved but I feel much better after ghosting him. Another incident happened where my bestfriend has been so busy we haven’t talked in a week and I told my other friend don’t even worry about answering her or speaking to her because she’s probably bored and we need to move on and focus on other things. I started ignoring her and not wanting to pick up the phone and tried to get her to forget about me especially after I thought she called my other friend first, I didn’t think I was important anymore. So my friend thought I was upset or whatever but I didn’t feel anything in the moment. And l was so confused on why he thought I was upset if I felt nothing. What are your thoughts on my type?

MBTI type: purely on writing style and basic content (nearly all interpersonal relationship details), ENFP; since this is one of the the things you were considering already, I think it's likely.

Enneatype: you're not a 7. You're a 2 or a 3. This is all about how others perceive you and how you want to be validated and loved by them. I think the 7 perception probably comes from the Ne, and you could have a 7 fix, but you're a 2 or 3 core.