vansharssandbox

[vansharssandbox]

idk if anyone else has seen the surge of memes making fun of cave divers recently. there was a comment on one that was like "cave divers with 4 kids, 2 degrees, a loving wife and a huge house when they learn that Satan's Sphincter has a 0% survival rate" it had me crying laughing

[vansharssandbox]

A thousand times this. I was abused by my parents and I've been abused by partners and not once do I think it was actively malicious. The people in question just lacked any self-awareness at all.

otherwise interesting post ruined by the bold insistence that you can never accidentally abuse someone & that all abusive people are self-aware evil masterminds

[vansharssandbox]

One of my favorite bits in Wheel of Time which I'm sure plenty of people hated (a thing you could say about almost any aspect of the series) is how each of the main three Two Rivers guys have love lives that often fail to even walk the line between hilarious and horrifying, let alone be functional and healthy; but every time they're doing really poorly, each one thinks, independently, "Man, I bet [one of the other Two Rivers guys] would know exactly what to do. He's so good with women." And then you mentally smash cut to that other guy, who is having a somehow worse time, even though that should be impossible.

[vansharssandbox]

Maybe I'm weird, but as a guy who is into women, nothing is hotter to me than horny women. Soaked through your panties while screaming "awooooga" and having your heart jump out of your chest like a cartoon wolf? Hit me up.

seeing straight men be disgusted by booktok smut recommenders has actually radicalized me to the side of booktok smut recommenders. girls your taste may be atrocious but i will never disparage you for exposing mainstream discourse to the concept of soaking through your underwear. spent my whole life listening to men talk about penises it’s about time they get jumpscared by women talking about pussy in crude detail on social media. go forth and goon my warriors

[vansharssandbox]

If I had a nickel for every time a "will they/ won't they" resolved in steamy sex that started with this hypothermia rescue trick, I'd have two nickels, which isn't a lot but it's weird that it happened twice!

Read "The Lark and the Wren" by Mercedes Lackey for more sleeping bag shenanigans.

On Rand, Aviendha, and Hypothermia Treatment

Looking back at Rand gettin his naked self all up on Aviendha, I really hope that no one thinks that either A. it’s total horndoggedness on Rand’s part or B. shoehorning a reason for them to be naked together on Robert Jordan’s part, because the real answer is C.: that’s exactly what you do if someone’s experiencing hypothermia.

1. Get them out of the cold

2. If they’re in wet clothes, get em off

3. Wrap them in something warm (a sleeping bag is ideal)

4. Get your own clothes off and get in there with them - your body heat is the best possible thing for them, and direct contact is the best way to warm them up

So really, the actual problem is how did Rand know exactly the right thing to do in this situation? Did he get the First Aid merit badge from the Two Rivers Boy Scouts???

[vansharssandbox]

Because I am coping with current world events in a completely normal manner I've been thinking a lot about how one of the tensions that underpins the whole of Wheel of Time is Robert Jordan as 'person who likes history' vs Robert Jordan as 'person who had to live through the Cold War.'

Something that can be really hard for people born after the Cold War (like myself) to grasp is that for a long time history was the ultimate reassurance against existential dread. Civilizations could rise and fall, empires could crumble, disasters could wipe out a hell of a lot of people, but human beings as a species, where never in any real danger of dying out. New countries would eventually rise out of the ashes of old ones, societies would change to be unrecognizable but they would still be there, religions, cultures ideologies etc might all die out but the people would still be around. History provided the ultimate comfort: whatever happened in our brief finite lives human beings as an group would eventually be fine.

But that changed after World War 2 and the invention of a little something called the atomic bomb. Suddenly human beings had the potential to destroy not just ourselves but all life on earth if things went wrong enough. For the first time in history their was no real guarantee that human beings as a species would make it, and in fact their was a whole lot of reason to believe based on the patterns of history that eventually that power would get used and human kind would destroy itself. That was the Cold War- two nuclear states who really really wanted to start blasting each other to pieces but couldn't without risking the end of life as we know it.

The tension between these two realities- the assurance of history that life will go on and the reality that human beings could in theory actually end the fucking world, is built into the core of Wheel of Time. The first lines assure us: time is cyclical. It's all happened before. It's all going to happen again. Human being will live out the same stories in endless variation, the same patterns will always reemerge. And the world has already survived one apocalyptic event: the Breaking, and come out the other side not doing fantastically, but still around. The world has been reshaped forever and whole eras of progress have been undone, but humanity remains.

But at the same time doomsday weapons with the potential to wipe out the species are everywhere. The Choden Kal can crack the planet open like an egg. Balefire burns apart time itself. A plague of madness is waiting for any old schmo to wander into it's den and carry it back outside so it can infect and destroy everyone. Their are all kinds of different big glowing red 'destroy humanity' buttons laying around in WoT just begging to get pressed. And in a way the Dark One is the ultimate version of that because that button has already been pressed. The Bore has been opened. Left alone humanity is fucked and everyone knows it. It can be delayed and pushed back, but never truly stopped, except by the intervention of destiny- the intervention of the Dragon. That's the core conflict of the series. Rand is struggling to stop a missile that's already been launched, prevent an end everyone can see coming. It's not just 'I need to defeat the big bad evil overlord or everything will be bad forever', it's 'I need to stop the Dark One or that's the end of human beings as an idea'.

What's especially interesting is that Jordan isn't even framing the Wheel/Pattern as uniformly good, because it's history and history is messy and complicated and full of contradictions and no easy answers. The Wheel, the Pattern, is not some force for righteousness. It's a neutral fact of existence. Not what's best or what's ideal- those are subjective and grounded in human understanding of the world- but what's necessary and what's true. To want to break free from history, to break the Wheel, is to want to break free of being human. That's what the Forsaken all truly want (as I have talked about before): to leave behind humanity, and their willing to sacrifice whatever it takes to do it. What that looks like and what motivates that desire is different for each of them but their united in that common goal, and they all either disregard the consequences of what it will mean or don't understand them.

The story of history is one of incredible suffering and amazing triumph: it's full of heartache and joy in equal measure. It's not fair or just or simple to understand, but it is a reflection of who we all are collectively. The fight to preserve the Wheel isn't a fight to preserve what is good or ideal, it is a fight to preserve what is human. Because as long as the story can keep going, we can have hope for tomorrow.

And Jordan promises right from the offing that their will always be a tomorrow. No beginnings. No endings. Just whatever comes next.

As we enter a period of history that is the most uncertain it's ever been in my lifetime, I can't help but I think of the incredible courage and strength it must have taken be staring down the barrel of nuclear armageddon and stubbornly insist that would be a tomorrow. The man wrote eleven of the best books ever made exploring this exact struggle- about never giving in to despair or pain, never buying into the belief that things are hopeless, that humanity sucks and we're all doomed.

And remembering that...I don't know. It makes a little easier to breath and keeping walking towards tomorrow myself.

[vansharssandbox]

My experience with Relationship Anarchism

(This is a mildly reworked post from my FetLife account, an account which is now inactive. Now that I've made the jump to Tumblr it occurs to me that this space is probably more likely to yield substantive or at least diverting conversations on the topic, hence the rework. I originally wrote this some months after an extremely painful slowfade I experienced about a year ago. It's not about that relationship specifically, but in the spirit of intellectual honesty I must admit that the genesis of this essay lies in a deeply painful personal experience. I don’t pretend to be subjective.)

I can’t believe I’m going to say this. Mostly because I was the target of similar sentiments constantly when I was a communist organizer, and it drove me crazy. But I have to admit - 

I love the idea of Relationship Anarchy. On paper. 

In practice, I am increasingly dubious.

What is Relationship Anarchy? Like any anarchist philosophy, it defies easy definition (and I hate arguing from or about definitions anyway), but we gotta start somewhere, right? The website www.relationship-anarchy.com, which I’m going to uncritically accept as an authority because I am lazy and who cares, presents many possible descriptions, and the one that resonates most with me is this:

“A relationship anarchist begins from a place of assuming total freedom and flexibility as the one in charge of their personal relationships and decides on a case by case basis what they want each relationship to look like.”

See the phrase “the one in charge”? That's a very interesting framing, isn't it? Stick that in your pocket for a moment, we’re coming back to that.

It’s a type of non-hierarchical ethical non-monogamy (say that three times fast), in which the practitioner does not submit to rules or expectations about their relationships, whether stipulated by society, or their other partners. They tend to deliberately blur the lines between romantic and platonic relationships, and reject the notion that sexual relationships are always the most important.

My ex-girlfriend defined it this way on her dating profiles (I’m paraphrasing, because I blocked her everywhere months ago and can’t pull text): “I let all of my relationships develop independently of one another, so that each is free to take whatever shape we find mutually fitting.”

This sounds absolutely amazing. I, too, firmly believe in the sanctity of all relationships, and firmly reject the idea that we should, or even can, fill our lives with people in specific roles like we’re filling out a baseball team; this is my wife, this is my best friend, this is my work wife, etc., etc. I also reject the idea that relationships can’t change, that once placed in a box a relationship must continue to fit the definition assigned to that box, or it is over, a “failed relationship.”

(My ex-wife remains my best friend years and years later, I am not full of shit here.)

Relationships are as unique and special as the people in them, and I love the idea of embracing a certain sense of fluidity to them, a freedom to fully explore and enjoy each unique dynamic.

So, what’s my beef?

I’m dangerously close to veering into the political here, but the truth is that my affinity for and also dubiousness of Relationship Anarchy parallels the same for, well, regular anarchy. I can put it in one sentence, honestly: Social relationships without hierarchies or rules sound great, but when engaged in by people who are individualist to a fault, the result is often to be self-absorbed and fickle, dooming the project to collapse as soon as things get difficult.

That’s the whole thesis, really, you can stop reading now if you like.

Still here? Cool.

The problem with RA in my experience (and my recent ex is not my only experience with it, although it is without a doubt the most painful) is that people who engage with it are often hyper-individualists. RA is about freedom from constraint for relationships, but for these folks the emphasis was clearly more about freedom from reciprocal obligations for themselves. 

What are reciprocal obligations? Nothing much, just the glue that holds any relationship, or any society, together. It’s the idea that two people in a relationship (and now I’m not just talking about romantic relationships, but all relationships, like, you know, a good relationship anarchist would) owe each other something, that they can count on one another for aid, for comfort, for connection, for whatever. That “failing to show up for someone” is, you know, bad. 

This is a really key point, so I’m gonna hammer at it for a second. Anyone with even a passing interest in RA (or just about any flavor of ENM or, for that matter, antiauthoritarianism) is understandably dubious about anything that smacks of coercion. If you’re being forced to do something for someone, if it’s an obligation, how is it free? How is that not coercive? 

“People ought to be free to draw their personal boundaries about what they will and will not do, how they will and will not show up, Vanshar, you fucking fascist.”

So let’s talk about that. Coercion is all about what I might call external consequences. Do [x], or suffer [y]. Give me your money, or I shoot you. Obey the law, or I put you in an iron cage. The very stuff that any flavor of anarchy is specifically opposed to (as am I).

So what enforces reciprocal obligations in a free, anarchist, mode? Something I might call internal consequences. Not consequences meted out by an outside actor, someone with authority, but consequences in the cause-and-effect sense: all choices have consequences, even in an anarchist relationship or society.

I’m not arguing that failing to “show up for someone” ought to be considered a civil failing. I’m not saying that there should be external consequences for it, legal or social or otherwise. But I am saying that failing to show up for someone is going to damage your relationship with them, and if you do it enough times, you won’t have a relationship with them anymore. That’s the internal consequence of whelching on your half of reciprocal obligation. And I’m saying that I see practitioners of RA do this. Like, a lot.

Now, obviously, it is super, super important that you and your partner/friend/cohort communicate well and be very clear on what those reciprocal obligations are for the two of you. I’m not saying that there is any objective template for what that looks like, which is actually a very RA sentiment of me, lmao. 

What I am saying is that if you refuse on philosophical grounds to accept any reciprocal obligations, your relationships are always going to be paper thin, and your intimates will figure out in due course that you cannot be relied on to stick things out when they get difficult at all, that you’ll be gone as soon as the “vibes are off.”

We used to call those “fair weather friends.”

(It’s also why, I suspect, political anarchists in the hyper-individualist west often seem to struggle with maintaining momentum on big projects, but that’s a whoooole other discussion.)

And I’m bringing the heat in this essay because every relationship I’ve had with someone who identified as a relationship anarchist, and many more relationships of the sort that I’ve witnessed as a community member, has ended (usually messily) because the relationship anarchist started skating on reciprocal obligations. It’s been enough of a pattern that now when someone introduces themself to me as a relationship anarchist, my first thought is “ok, that means you’re going to be very cool when the vibes are immaculate, and very not here when I need you, noted.”

RA upholds individual liberty as a primary value, but if that isn’t balanced with an explicit embrace of the notion of reciprocal obligation, the relationship anarchist runs the risk of treating their friends and partners as disposable. “You are in my life only in a manner, and for as long, as I choose.” Because they are “the one in charge of their personal relationships,” right?

You thought I forgot about that, didn’t you?

It cracks me up that a definition of RA, on a website advocating for it, includes an open allusion to authority. Because in a truly equitable relationship, no one person is in charge! You must cede a certain amount of autonomy, in the form of reciprocal obligations, if you’re going to build anything lasting.

Without that, you’re not building a relationship with someone. 

You’re just hanging out.

And that’s no basis for love, for family, or for community.

As I close this out, I want to reiterate that this is all motivated by my personal experiences with dating, and being friends with, a largish handful of relationship anarchists in the Willamette Valley of Oregon, in the last ten years or so. It is the product of a time and a place. If this isn’t you, if you’re a relationship anarchist who embraces reciprocal obligations, comes through clutch for friends and partners even when you’d really rather not, and you don’t ghost or ditch people in order to chase something new and shiny, good for you! This post isn’t about you! Gold star!

And I’m really not saying “RA is bad, don’t do it.” I’m saying “here is a really common pratfall associated with RA, in my experience, and I recommend you think about it so you don’t leave a trail of mangled hearts in your wake like certain people I know, ahem.”

Thanks for reading this, I love all four of you. Equally but differently, like a good relationship anarchist.

[vansharssandbox]

My coworker asked me a question about Queer culture the other day and it was a really good question but I couldn’t think of a polite way to tell them that they didn’t have the foundational knowledge required to support full comprehension of the answer

[vansharssandbox]

Notably absent from this list: are you a fan of Wheel of Time (you know, the books)? Lol

I wonder how I would have reacted to the show if I hadn't read the books first. I admit that the production design and quality is astonishing, and it really was fun to see someone else's interpretation of what the world might feel like. But the show is such a screamingly unfaithful adaptation of the books in terms of theme and character that it was just too distracting. Like someone really wanted to tell their own story, but were getting paid to do WoT, so they got out a hammer and tried to make everything fit.

Do you like the lord of the rings? You should watch the wheel of time.

Do you like arthuriana? You should watch the wheel of time.

Do you like the locked tomb? You should watch the wheel of time.

Do you like dune? You should watch the wheel of time.

Do you like GOT/HOTD? You should watch the wheel of time.

Do you like the expanse? You should watch the wheel of time.

Do you like complex science fantasy worldbuilding, showstopping villains, weird cultural mishmash religious allegories, codependent knight/mage relationships, geopolitical dramas, homoeroticism, polyamory, and again I can never stress this one enough, femdom stuff?

You guessed it!

You should watch The Wheel Of Time!!!!

[vansharssandbox]

Teal'c was the most wholesome character in the history of science fiction. Love that guy.

If Teal'c likes it, it’s gotta be okay.

[vansharssandbox]

Wonderwall was the first song I ever learned on guitar, and this is a meme for a reason, and it's not Liam Gallagher's croon. It uses dead simple chord shapes that largely leave the ring and pinkie finger of the fretting hand static. Your get a deep, emotional, buttery smooth sound and you're mostly only using two fingers to do it. It's a gift to new players and I will die on this hill.

give a man a guitar and he’ll play for a day, teach a man guitar and today is gonna be the day that they’re gonna throw it back to you

[vansharssandbox]

[vansharssandbox]

@gayofgaymark2

nate: here's our hitter, eliot spencer. he's the best of the best at combat and weaponry

nate: no one is better than him at disarming large numbers of enemies without going down

nate: he can identify weaponry by sound and organizations by fighting style, hair cut, and shoes

nate: we use him for honeypots

[vansharssandbox]

Something to watch for, which I learned from stage magic but which is extremely relevant to detecting scams as well:

The magician or scammer will *tell you* how he is going to prove his honesty.

The magician rifles through the deck until you say "stop", then he says, "Are you sure? I'll keep going if you want." and asks "Now, you agree that you could have stopped anywhere you wanted, so there's absolutely no way I could know which card you got" and because it's a magic show and you aren't paying close attention you didn't notice he didn't deal a card from where you stopped, he dealt the bottom card of the deck.

The magician doesn't ask you, "What would it take for you to believe this" because you might say, "I'd need you to use a sealed deck" or "I'd have to personally shuffle the deck" or some other proof that would make the trick impossible.

Magicians say "You agree that if I did *this*, it would mean *that*, right?" and you say yes, and it feels like you are the one who got to verify things, but of course the magician is lying and the proof is nothing of the kind.

Scammers do the same thing. A really concrete example is phone scammers pretending to be working for the government will say, "Look, I see you're skeptical if I'm who I say I am, I'm going to hang up and call back, and you'll see on the caller ID it says, 'FBI' and that tells you that I'm really working for the government."

Now, caller ID can be spoofed pretty easily, so it doesn't prove anything at all.

But it *feels* to you like you demanded proof and the scammer was willing to give you the proof.

But you didn't tell the scammer what out would take to prove it to you, the scammer told you what the proof would be.

This is actually like a really basic thing to look for if you want to start decoding magic tricks and scams.

[vansharssandbox]

This is so accurate