Anonymous asked: YOU GOT REBLOGGED BY SPACE-AUSTRALIANS
I don’t even know how that post got so popular. I just like to sit around and be a smart-ass about Legolas and Gimli, guys. Also, since it’s not my post, I never know who reblogs it until someone tells me or it comes across my dash.
Anonymous asked: hey, if you're up for discussion: i noticed a lot of the arguments re: bdsm were the kind of arguments that in other situations might be used against queer relationships. what would the difference be between a bdsm couple having a leash in a grocery store aisle as opposed to two gay men kissing? is it that theres a stigma against choking (man, that sounds weird put like that)? arent they doing their thing wituout asking other ppl to be involved? id love to know ur thoughts if u dont mind.
Oh…kay.
*pours self a drink*
There’s a lot to cover here, so everyone buckle up while your queer dom vodka auntie discusses some stuff.
This is regarding this post for anyone who wants to follow along. Here’s the major points we’re going to hit:
First off, we’re going to talk about BDSM—as it should be done, not the exploitative imitation in 50 Shades. The core of BDSM is trust: the sub trusts the dom to stop if they safeword out, and the dom trusts the sub to know their limits and use that safeword. The three major tenets of BDSM are Safe, Sane, and Consensual, meaning that everyone in the scene feels safe because they trust the person they’re with, everyone in the scene knows what they’re getting into and what they’re doing, and, most critically, they have agreed to those things clearly and explicitly. Safe and Sane are pretty predicated on the people involved knowing what they’re doing, but Consensual is non-negotiable.
Which brings us rapidly to point two, consent. This is the major problem with couples practicing any sort of overt BDSM in public. The public, merely by their presence, is part of the scene—you don’t do stuff in public unless the response of the public, the feeling of being watched is somehow part of it, so the public is involved in the scene—but they have not consented to participation. Consent in BDSM is (or should be) an intricate thing, based on negotiations of what people are or are not willing to do, discussion and acknowledgement of their personal history, and establishing a safeword, a word used to indicate “everything needs to stop now” that can be used by anyone involved without protest from other parties. So, for example, if it was me, I might be like “I have a history of abuse, so I’m not comfortable humiliating a sub or acting like I’m punishing them,” and the person I was talking with might be like “I’m not comfortable with being choked, but I’ve always wanted to be tied up.” And then we would go from there with those ground rules in place, and establish a safeword. Before we ever discussed a scene, all of that would be hashed out, and then when we did discuss a scene, it would be something we’d already agreed that everyone involved was interested in doing and had the option to opt out of.
So, this is where public BDSM sort of falls apart, yeah? Because the bystanders have not discussed their boundaries or their histories, they have not negotiated what they’re interested in, and they do not have a safeword that will let them opt out of the scene. Suppose one of the bystanders goes up to the couple and asks, “Hey, could you not choke your girlfriend in public? You’re really freaking my son out.” The couple hasn’t had that discussion with that bystander, they are not obligated by the BDSM contract to honor that bystander’s request. Now, it’s the decent thing to do, to respect someone’s request for what’s really an easy thing, but people…uh, suck. People suck. Honoring the request to not choke your girlfriend in public actually takes less effort than doing it anyway, but people suck, so they’re almost inevitably going to go “fuck you” and do it anyway. Which is NOT how BDSM is supposed to work, because see above re: Safe, Sane, and Consensual. So, like, there’s that. BDSM is about consent and trust. The bystanders don’t have that foundation of trust, and they haven’t consented to being part of the scene, so everything else aside it fundamentally violates the contract implicit in BDSM. If a couple does want to do that sort of public BDSM stuff, that’s what fetish parties are for, they can pay the necessary money to do it with people who have agreed and consented to being their audience. Otherwise, it’s more like catcalling—you might be getting off on it, but the other people involved just feel creeped out and vaguely violated.
But here’s the core of your question: the difference between sexual and sensual behavior.
Okay, so, sexual behavior is exactly what it says on the tin, it’s about sex. Sensual behavior is about physical touch and showing affection with no expectation that those touches lead to sex, it’s about romance. This is where the analogy between BDSM and queer couples falls apart, because it’s this simple.
And I don’t want to hear debate about this, kiddos. I know that BDSM can be nonsexual, I know that some people find it a deep relief to let someone else take control or to take control themselves, but that’s not the kind of BDSM relationship that gets flashily displayed in public. Let me posit a scenario, in which I have a friend with whom I have a platonic dom/sub arrangement. When they’re under stress, they let me take charge, and let’s suppose that during one of these agreed-upon scenes we’re going grocery shopping. I might have an arm through theirs, or I might hold their hand, while I do most of the talking and instruct them on what to put in the cart. Any passerby wouldn’t notice anything unusual there—my friend might be tired, I might be a chatterbox, we might be doing a grocery run so I can make dinner, hell, maybe I’m just a bossy person. That’s not something that engages the public in any way, shape, or form. On the other hand, let’s take the example of a couple who goes grocery shopping in the same way, but one of them has the other on a collar and chain. That’s about the exhibition, it’s about the two of them getting off on being seen to have that power dynamic and all the trappings. And that’s about sex. It’s about being titillated by bringing something that’s normally private into the open.
A pair of gay men kissing in public? That’s not about sex. That’s about being romantically attached. And it’s something that straight couples get away with all the time, is the thing here. Whereas it doesn’t matter if that hypothetical couple with the collar and chain is two women, a man and a woman, or three tentacle aliens and a grizzly bear, that’s still about sex and therefore still inappropriate to be pushed onto the public without consent. It’s not about our culture having a stigma on choking, which…real fast, let me establish that there’s a very serious difference between having a stigma on, say, tattoos, as opposed to something like choking. The reason we have a cultural stigma about choking is because it’s frequently used to hurt or kill people. America, at the very least, could stand to have some stricter stigmas about other things used to hurt or kill people. Like guns. The reason overt BDSM like what’s described above is inappropriate in public is because it is sexual and it does disregard the right of the bystanders to consent to their own sexual experiences.
As long as we’re on the subject, I want to hit one more thing. I think your ask is talking specifically about the remark that used to be made about “Well, how am I going to explain two men kissing to my kids?” And kids are important here. Because, okay, let’s suppose a four-year-old is presented with these two situations. The two men kissing is easy. That kid has definitely seen someone kissing their partner before, just tell them that the two men love each other and kissing someone is a way to show that you love them. Easy-peasy. However, explaining BDSM to anyone involves a pretty in-depth discussion of human sexuality, and…like, listen. There is a reason that showing children porn is considered abuse. By exposing the public to intense BDSM play, you are also exposing kids to a sexual act, without their consent or full understanding of what’s going on. And we have pretty much agreed that pulling that stunt is Wrong.
TL;DR: BDSM of the variety being discussed here is inherently sexual, whereas queer couples engaging in affectionate contact is not. Sex acts require consent, and the general public has not consented to being part of your BDSM scene. Don’t be an asshole, and if you really want to carry your power dynamics out of the bedroom, do it in a way that doesn’t force everyone else to be part of something they have not agreed to and cannot opt out of. I can do a separate post on that if you’re interested.
Aaaaaaaaall righty then. I think that covers everything. I hope you’ve all enjoyed this journey into good BDSM etiquette and the fine art of consent.
Vodka Auntie, out.
(via starwarsisgay)
i really, really hope that whenever we actually get to space for real, like past mars, the universe turns out to be exactly as goddamn weird as we have all been expecting all this time. like, space whales past jupiter. palaces of methane ice on pluto. old gods lurking around in the asteroid belt. the ghost of ancient vengeful alien sailors crewing their ghost ships in eternal loops through the oort cloud and sirens off alpha centauri. in a hundred years i want one of my great grandkids to unfurl a holographic map, and look at the little notation hovering a hundred light years past vega that says here there be dragons (no really) and smile, and set sail.
look i am already in the car with the keys in the ignition i am so here for this
(via slyrider)
Marinette keeping the pics of Adrien up on her wall becuase she cant bring herself to throw them out, but adding pictures of her other friends as well so it’s less weird. Suddenly it’s Adrien and Alya and Nino and Rose and Kim and everyone at school who’s plastered against her walls. She adds pics of her parents, her neighbors, her Aikido instructor, and all the little kids she babysits. She even asks the regular patrons at the bakery if they’d mind posing for a portrait. (which of course they do because she’d always been so sweet and sunny and who could resist those blue eyes.)
then one day Adrien gets invited back to her house. maybe to study, maybe for video games, the reason isn’t important. what is important is the fact he climbs up into her room and just marvels at all the friends Marinette has. The sheer volume of people she knows is staggering, he thinks, and he spends a good ten minutes looking at every single picture.
Some wonderful things to keep in mind for this scenario:
- Adrien spots himself amongst her collection, and while he’s not-so-lowkey ecstatic over the fact someone cares enough about him to hang his picture on their walls, he’s also a bit glum that the only shots she has are from magazines. everyone else gets candid shots or laughing selfies, things that show their personality, but all his photos are fabricated and retouched. Impersonal. He gently brings this to Marinette’s attention, and suggests she take some new pictures of him. Pictures just for her. (cue Marinette dying)
- Adrien also happens to spot another familiar
felineface on the walls, and just barely swallows down his pleased smirk (’cool it, you’re not in costume’) to find a dozen pics of Chat Noir scattered across Marinette’s room. Most of them he recognizes from the Ladyblog, but there’s one or two that seem to be candid captures of him on patrol. (which yeah, should probably freak him out but damn if Marinette’s photography skills dont make him look heroic as fuck under the moonlight.) He asks- very super casually -if she’s a fan, and is not at all emotionally prepared when Marinette launches into a speech about how Chat Noir is one of the most selfless, kind, and underappreciated people in all of Paris, and how he deserves just as much recognition as Ladybug for keeping the city safe. “Everyone needs to remember, his destruction is what balances Ladybug’s creation. Without each other, they’d be nothing,” Marinette prattles on. (Adrien nods mutely, desperately trying and failing not to fall in love.)- Speaking of Ladybug… she’s noticeably absent from the walls. When asked about it, Marinette grows vague, saying something about how she’s waiting for the right picture or what not. something unique. something that isnt already on the walls of every Ladybug fan in Paris. ‘Something unique…’ Adrien muses, asking Marinette if he might barrow her camera for the night, ‘I might just be able to do that…’
(via cthulhu-with-a-fez)
Teaching Consent to Small Children
A friend and I were out with our kids when another family’s two-year-old came up. She began hugging my friend’s 18-month-old, following her around and smiling at her. My friend’s little girl looked like she wasn’t so sure she liked this, and at that moment the other little girl’s mom came up and got down on her little girl’s level to talk to her.
“Honey, can you listen to me for a moment? I’m glad you’ve found a new friend, but you need to make sure to look at her face to see if she likes it when you hug her. And if she doesn’t like it, you need to give her space. Okay?”
Two years old, and already her mother was teaching her about consent.
My daughter Sally likes to color on herself with markers. I tell her it’s her body, so it’s her choice. Sometimes she writes her name, sometimes she draws flowers or patterns. The other day I heard her talking to her brother, a marker in her hand.
“Bobby, do you mind if I color on your leg?”
Bobby smiled and moved himself closer to his sister. She began drawing a pattern on his leg with a marker while he watched, fascinated. Later, she began coloring on the sole of his foot. After each stoke, he pulled his foot back, laughing. I looked over to see what was causing the commotion, and Sally turned to me.
“He doesn’t mind if I do this,” she explained, “he is only moving his foot because it tickles. He thinks its funny.” And she was right. Already Bobby had extended his foot to her again, smiling as he did so.
What I find really fascinating about these two anecdotes is that they both deal with the consent of children not yet old enough to communicate verbally. In both stories, the older child must read the consent of the younger child through nonverbal cues. And even then, consent is not this ambiguous thing that is difficult to understand.
Teaching consent is ongoing, but it starts when children are very young. It involves both teaching children to pay attention to and respect others’ consent (or lack thereof) and teaching children that they should expect their own bodies and their own space to be respected—even by their parents and other relatives.
And if children of two or four can be expected to read the nonverbal cues and expressions of children not yet old enough to talk in order to assess whether there is consent, what excuse do full grown adults have?
I try to do this every day I go to nursery and gosh it makes me so happy to see it done elsewhere.
Yes, consent is nonsexual, too!
Not only that, but one of the reasons many child victims of sexual abuse don’t reach out is that they don’t have the understanding or words for what is happening to them, and why it isn’t okay. Teaching kids about consent helps them build better relationships and gives them the tools to seek help if they or a friend need our protection.
I wish this post featured the OP’s name more prominently; it’s by Libby Anne of love joy feminism, and she writes fantastic stuff. A survivor of Christian patriarchal fundamentalism, she writes about parenting from the perspective of someone working through her own traumatic experiences. I love reading her blog.
(Source: afrafemme-blog, via ifeelbetterer)
honestly one of the most heart-wrenching, incredible images from the Animorphs series for me is from #13, where the kids, a bunch of 13 year old kids, their equally young andalite friend, and the two only free hork-bajir in the entire universe are all scared, stuck in the woods together and have decided to trust one another. And they pound their chests and scream out the mantra of the entire series free or dead in the face of the yeerk empire that threatens to enslave all of them and it just brings me to tears every time i read it
(via chromatographic)
Anonymous asked: #9, The Secret
Short opinion: This is one of those books where the only thing more terrifying than the alien invasion is the planet the aliens are trying to invade.
Long opinion:
Although it’s not my favorite of the series, this book has a lot of really cool moments, both light (Marco referencing the Ramones, Cassie’s dad making her pick up the skunk, GRAPE JUICE) and dark (Cassie’s panic after killing the termite queen, everyone’s near-death in the logging camp battle). This plot also nicely resolves the question of why the yeerks aren’t doing more to find the “andalites” allegedly living in the area through showing that, although humans might destroy forests and shoot skunks, humans also do a lot to protect their own planet.
Another thing I love about this book: Marco and Jake’s interaction. It only gets mentioned a few times in this book (and comes up again a couple times later in the series), but one of my favorite Little Things from the series is Marco and Jake’s ongoing Batman vs. Spider-Man debate. I am really fascinated that Jake argues in favor of Batman and Marco is so in favor of Spider-Man, given that Jake is a tactician who fights primarily through quick hit-and-run attacks (like Spider-Man) whereas Marco is a strategist who fights by thinking ahead of his opponents and coming up with creative ways to have them solve his problems for him (like Batman). Maybe it’s a matter of mutual respect for one another’s abilities, or a tendency to discount their own abilities. After all, Marco tends to describe his strategic perspective as “simple” and “clear,” whereas Jake continuously underestimates his impact on the team no matter what it is.
Then again, maybe Jake is such a fan of Batman because Bruce Wayne is (like him) a pensive, privileged justice-fighter focused on working hard to teach himself the skills he needs to be effective at his job. And maybe Marco sees himself in Spider-Man, since Peter Parker’s a goofy kid who gets thrown into a situation way over his head and spends the next several years flailing around trying to rise to the occasion. Or maybe they just played too many arcade games. Maybe they just need to watch this.
The other scene from this book that I really love is the one where Jake finds Cassie after she falls asleep in skunk morph protecting the baby skunks and he yells at her for being careless. She tells him she wants out of the war and that humans suck so much they might as well get taken over by yeerks; Jake calmly shuts her down when offers to go explain to Tom that he deserves to be enslaved by the yeerks according to Cassie’s philosophy. Cassie tells Jake that she’s saving the baby skunks no matter what, to which Jake responds that in that case they’d better recruit the whole team.
I love this scene for a couple different reasons. For one thing, it’s refreshing to see Cassie being wrong for once. In the series as a whole and in this book in particular there are several moments where she makes relatively dumb decisions that end up working out for her anyway (trusting Aftran, refusing to help with Taylor’s plan, letting Tom’s yeerk take the morphing cube, letting Aftran infest her, etc). In this instance, however, Cassie nearly gets herself trapped in morph over some baby skunks, and she risks her friends’ lives when just a few minutes ago she was angry with Tobias for killing to survive. She’s wrong, and both she and Jake acknowledge it.
This scene is also one of the many reasons I ship Cassie and Jake: they call each other out on bad decisions and resolve their differences of opinion through talking things out. Jake is wrong to dismiss Cassie’s concerns about the logging permits, as he freely admits later in the book. Cassie is wrong to tell Jake that the fight doesn’t matter in a universe this brutal when (unlike him) she doesn’t have any loved ones on the line in this war. They discuss their differences of opinion and resolve them.
Not only do they discuss their disagreement openly, but they also both make concessions. Cassie agrees that she needs to be a lot more careful in the future, especially with morphing time limits. Jake agrees that (even though he doesn’t see the point) they’ll “save the lousy skunks” (#9). They listen to each other and find a solution. It’s a pattern that comes up several more times over the course of the series: Jake and Cassie are the only ones willing to tell each other when one of them is wrong, but always do so in a way that avoids polarization or passive aggression. (Rachel and Tobias do not do nearly as well with this kind of conflict resolution when the circumstances arise, but that’s a whole other can of yeerks I’m not going to open here.)
Jake and Cassie might not have a perfect relationship—it doesn’t even survive the war, and its passion pales in comparison to what Rachel and Tobias have—but they also have a healthy relationship. Jake mentions a few times that the only time he feels able to drop the whole “I’m the leader, I feel no pain” act is when he’s alone with Cassie. Cassie agonizes over every major decision they make but also never stops trusting that Jake knows what he’s doing when he makes a tough call. Their arguments don’t have a single winner, and involve both of them openly confronting each other with their own points of view. They work to understand each other, since there are a lot of things they do not have in common, and that work might make for less melodrama but also makes for better communication.
Final note: the motif of Visser Three doing dumb shit and none of the human-controllers in the immediate vicinity who must know better correcting him comes up here. It’s another one of those Little Things that K.A. Applegate uses to speak volumes about why the yeerks lost the war just as much as the Animorphs won it. This book shows that it’s a bad idea to behead subordinates who disagree with you, because then you end up surrounded by sycophants who never once mention that you just dyed yourself purple for no reason.
Okay but Sky high AU where Enj and R get in a fight about E being literally a family of Heroes and not knowing what it’s like to be from a family with one super parent that just so happens to be a villain
(via enjolrarses)
anxious-geek asked: I had a dream where they were making a modern les mis and Dwayne "the Rock" Johnson was going to be jean valjean and honestly it was beautiful
Listen, I’m just picturing Dwayne the Rock Johnson swinging a little Cosette from one of his biceps and this is all I ever needed in life
oh my gods can this actually happen pls he would be the best valjean ever istg I love this
Vodka Tia Moran
