Avatar

Terrible In Bed

@shortace

Insomniac asexual

Pinned

I am fully aware that nobody is asking me this in good faith. Everybody saying this has the intention of belittling me, dehumanising me, or pointing out to their friends how ridiculous they think I am.

But. In case anybody comes here with genuine curiosity and respect. I may as well answer.

"How can I be non-binary, asexual, and also a mother, and have been married?"

For starters, I'm in my 40s. Identities like non-binary and asexual weren't commonly talked about in my younger, developmental years. I simply did not know that they existed. I didn't know that they were things I could be. I never felt right, I never quite understood a lot of things, but I went along with it because... you just do, don't you? When you don't know there's an alternative. And you know what, I was genuinely in love with my husband. I reckon I'm demiromantic - so maybe romance isn't super important to me, maybe I'm not going to fall in love a lot of times, or very easily, but I did, at least once. And whilst I don't experience sexual attraction, whilst I'm definitely completely asexual, there are lots of reasons to have sex. Love is one of them. Wanting intimacy, bonding, to please your partner. And neither asexuality nor demiromanticism excludes someone from wanting kids, and from loving their kids. Continuing to use the identifier "mother" after figuring out my non-binary identity is mostly laziness and apathy: it works, I don't care enough to make my kids call me anything else. "Mum" is fine. It's a social and emotional role more than it has anything to do with my gender.

If you have any questions, and feel able to approach me with respect and are open to learning, I'm happy to engage with you. I don't want anybody to remain ignorant and confused for as long as I did.

I’m every one in this

MAN 1 (in a high pitched, whiny voice) Look what you’ve done to my peonies!

WOMAN (angrily) They’re marigolds!

MAN 2 God! I think she’s right! They are marigolds!

MAN 1 I may not know my flowers, but I know a (yells in her direction) bitch when I see one!

Avatar
kosciuszkovevo

It’s back!

Avatar
j-sillabub

I looked this up because I had to know what it’s from. It’s a film called The Gay Deceivers (1969), and it’s about two straight men who, seeking to avoid the draft, claim to be gay, but then have to keep up the pretense when the army places them under surveillance.

The man in the red cardigan in the clip was played by Michael Greer, who was openly gay himself - unusual for the time. He actually worked closely with the director and rewrote much of the film’s dialogue to reduce the homophobia and make it more realistic. As a result it’s quite progressive for its time, having a gay character, played by a gay man, living in a happy same-sex relationship, which is more than a lot of media offers us today.

Plus the clip is delightful.

I just needed this again.

I'm doing a job that could be done by a moderately-trained pigeon, but the pigeon wouldn't be allowed because it would be inhumane.

Avatar
Reblogged xserpx

I feel like we need a refresher on Watsonian vs Doylist perspectives in media analysis. When you have a question about a piece of media - about a potential plot hole or error, about a dubious costuming decision, about a character suddenly acting out of character -

  • A Watsonian answer is one that positions itself within the fictional world.
  • A Doylist answer is one that positions itself within the real world.

Meaning: if Watson says something that isn't true, one explanation is that Watson made a mistake. Another explanation is that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle made a mistake.

Watsonian explanations are implicitly charitable. You are implicitly buying into the notion that there is a good in-world reason for what you're seeing on screen or on the page. ("The bunny girls in Final Fantasy wear lingerie all the time because they're from a desert culture!")

Doylist explanations are pragmatic. You are acknowledging that the fiction is shaped by real-world forces, like the creators' personal taste, their biases, the pressures they might be under from managers or editors, or the limits of their expertise. ("The bunny girls in Final Fantasy wear lingerie because somebody thought they'd sell more units that way.")

Watsonian explanations tend to be imaginative but naive. Seeking a Watsonian explanation for a problem within a narrative is inherently pleasure-seeking: you don't want your suspension of disbelief to be broken, and you're willing to put in the leg work to prevent it. Looking for a Watsonian answer can make for a fun game! But it can quickly stray into making excuses for lazy or biased storytelling, or cynical and greedy executives.

Doylist explanations are very often accurate, but they're not much fun. They should supersede efforts to provide a Watsonian explanation where actual harm is being done: "This character is being depicted in a racist way because the creators have a racist bias.'" Or: "The lore changed because management fired all of the writers from last season because they didn't want to pay then residuals."

Doylism also runs the risk of becoming trite, when applied to lower stakes discrepancies. Yes, it's possible that this character acted strangely in this episode because this episode had a different writer, but that isn't interesting, and it terminates conversation.

I think a lot of conversations about media would go a lot more smoothly, and everyone would have a lot more fun, if people were just clearer about whether they are looking to engage in Watsonian or Doylist analysis. How many arguments could be prevented by just saying, "No, Doylist you're probably right, but it's more fun to imagine there's a Watsonian reason for this, so that's what I'm doing." Or, "From a Watsonian POV that explanation makes sense, but I'm going with the Doylist view here because the creator's intentions leave a bad taste in my mouth that I can't ignore."

Idk, just keep those terms in your pocket? And if you start to get mad at somebody for their analysis, take a second to see if what they're saying makes more sense from the other side of the Watsonian/Doylist divide.

There is a specific terrifying scenario which one can only be familiar with if one is both short-sighted and arachnophobic.

Because you're arachnophobic, you immediately leap to the conclusion that any small unexpected moving object or new mark or stain on a wall or floor is probably a spider. Because you're short-sighted, you cannot tell for sure without getting closer to it. Because you're arachnophobic, you cannot get closer to it.

It's a catch-22 situation. Happily I erred on the side of caution and now there's a dead white-tail on my floor. Unhappily, I still need to do something about that corpse...

Avatar
Reblogged

The rest of the queers aren't allowed to exclude asexuals anymore; we've got the JK Rowling Seal of Disapproval! It's official, we belong!

JKR Seal of Disapproval made for my fellows Aces.

Hand-drawn image, coloured by using Felt Tips, Water-Paint, and Gold Pens. Using a Phoenix as the symbol as an extra F you to She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named ;-)

*/*/*

And Here is a version for those Beautiful Trans Folks who have had to deal with her nonsense for years.

Very nice, thank you!!

Avatar
Reblogged

Opal: I could kill you if I wanted.

Artemis: Yeah? So could any other human being. So could a dog. So could a dedicated duck. You aren't special.

the thing about being nonbinary is that you really do start to forget that other people have such strict walls around what is and isn’t allowed for genders. i thought we all agreed that we made that up. could you climb out of the cave real quick and feel the sunshine for a minute.

The thing about reclaiming slurs is that once you've been affectionally called 'faggot' by friends, loved ones, and amiable fellows on the internet for long enough, you almost forget that it means something else to people who hate you.

Honestly at this point if a stranger on the street yelled "hey faggot!" after me, I'd probably turn around like "what?" like they'd just casually called me by name, and they were only trying to get my attention because they wanted to tell me something, before processing that they're being hostile.

Avatar
Reblogged

The rest of the queers aren't allowed to exclude asexuals anymore; we've got the JK Rowling Seal of Disapproval! It's official, we belong!

I am absolutely blown away by how fast this post has blown up, how many notes, how much support it's gotten... I'm very much feeling the love and support for the aces, and I know some comments and reblogs have mentioned the aros as well (I'm also aro!! The post was only asexual-specific because that's what JKR posted and I was responding to that). Loving my queer community right now!!

Because we don't teach history right.

We teach history like it's a work of fiction where the characters act the way they do because they were written that way. And not like the real world with real people who were just as human as us and had reasons to act the way they do. And that the same mistakes and foibles they had could happen to us too.

And even this history is woefully undertaught. People learn it to memorize the events of the story and then forget about it. They don't learn to comprehend it, they don't learn to learn from it.

This will be a long story, but settle in, because this is important.

I was fortunate enough to have some great teachers growing up, in a small, fairly well-funded school system (and during times when everyone still agreed that fascism was bad). In 8th grade, our school had an interdisciplinary unit for about a month focusing solely on the Holocaust. Every class taught something related to it, even math. For a month, we read horrifying stories and watched documentaries and did research assignments on the Holocaust. By the end, any one of us would have said we were experts on the subject.

And at the very end, our entire grade (about 100 kids) was broken into four groups, and we were told that as a reward for all our hard work on the Holocaust unit, we were going to compete for a trip to Disney World. Only one team could go, but the entire team would get to travel there and spend a few days in the park, all expenses paid.

The competition was simple: the group with the most team spirit would win. We were instructed to come up with a team name, a catchy slogan, and a logo (something simple and easy to draw). We were allowed to prove our team spirit however we wanted. That was it. That was all of the instructions. The competition would last a week, and short of stopping physical violence, the teachers stepped back and let us have at it.

It was terrifying.

At first, everyone just hung up posters in the halls and cheerfully recited their slogan whenever the teachers were watching. Within a few days, posters were being torn down and shredded. Verbal fights were breaking out in the hallways. It wasn't enough to say your team was the best, everyone had somehow decided. You also had to prove that everyone else's team was inferior. People started making up lies and gossip, saying that everyone in a particular group was lazy or ugly or smelly or what have you (we were 13). Slurs were thrown around. (Again, we were 13.)

By the final day, the groups were marching down the halls in formation, shouting their slogan in unison. Shouting slander against the other groups. The floor was covered in tattered paper.

I was shy and introverted and weird and unpopular and mostly stayed out of it. But those images are burned into my memory. These kids had turned into vicious monsters, all for a stupid school project.

The teachers had us march down the hallway to the auditorium to announce the results of the competition. The groups were little armies now. Most students marched in lockstep, shouting their slogans. We were seated together in our groups. The teachers dimmed the lights, quieted us down, and the teacher in charge of this whole project said that before he announced the winners, he had something to share with us about the person who was responsible for this entire competition. He turned on the projector and displayed a portrait of Hitler.

Everyone lost their minds. Kids were booing and throwing things. We knew that Hitler was a Bad Guy.

The teacher calmed us back down, and then explained that there was no trip to Disney World, and the fact that not one student questioned for a moment that such a massively expensive and complicated prize would be granted for such a silly competition was honestly kind of disappointing. This entire week, he said, was our final exam. The final exam for the Holocaust unit.

We had spent a month learning about this. About how this "bad guy" inspired a whole hell of a lot of people to march in lockstep shouting slogans and plastering their symbol all over everything. That one bad guy had told them that they were special, and other groups were trying to take away what was rightfully theirs for being the best, and they ultimately got extremely violent. We had learned all about the Hitler Youth and the SS and book burnings and, of course, the concentration camps. We'd all read the Diary of Anne Frank. We'd been marinating in this information for a month, in all of our classes.

But we hadn't learned. We hadn't really understood what they were trying to teach us. Not that this happened. But that this happens. It can happen very easily, especially if people aren't watching out for it.

The kids were furious. They shouted that this wasn't fair, that we were only following instructions. The teachers had lied to us. They had told us to do this, and now they were mad at us for following directions?

He was ready for this, of course. Calming us back down again, he pointed out that all they'd done is tell us to give ourselves a name, a slogan, a symbol, and demonstrate "team spirit." That was literally it. No one told us to rip posters down. No one told us to march in the hallways. No one told us to spread rumors and shout insults. No one told us to fight each other.

They didn't have to.

All it takes to get people to behave this way is to tell them that their group is special, they deserve good things, but the good things aren't there because those other people are taking them from you.

The Nazis were not uniquely evil people. They were just encouraged to demonstrate their team spirit. And there were no teachers to stop it from getting violent. Because the person encouraging them wanted things to get violent.

The Holocaust was not the story of Hitler the Bad Guy. He was there, and he was responsible for a lot, but that wasn't the point. Germany during the Holocaust wasn't suddenly, by total accident, full of evil people.

It was just full of people like us.

This time, it just was a lie about Disney World and a week of chaos. But if we didn't watch out, the next time fascism started to rise, we would get swept up on the wrong side of it. We had just proven that we would. We'd be too swept up in making sure that our special group got the prize they deserved to notice that we were being lied to about the prize in the first place.

That could happen. If we weren't careful. If we forgot the lesson we'd just learned.

After he'd let the horror and shame and embarrassment and indignation of that week sink in properly, he reassured us that it wasn't our fault. The point wasn't for us to prove that we understood the lesson of the Holocaust. It wasn't actually a test after all, it was our final lesson. The most important lesson.

He'd known that this test would go this way, because it always did. He did this every year. He said in all his years of teaching, only one student, one student, had ever questioned it. Pulled him aside in the hallway and said straightforwardly that whatever was going on was messed up and he wanted no part of it.

And you know what? That is how you teach history. You give students the facts of what happened. And then you show them how easily it can happen again.

Sadly, most schools don't have the resources for this sort of thing, and these days they'd probably not be allowed to run this little experiment. But I'm extremely grateful to that teacher, grateful that I was part of that experience. It was harrowing, and it made me and a lot of other people vigilant for the rest of my life in a way I know I would not have been otherwise.

It was over 35 years ago now and it still makes me emotional to think about.

Most people never got to have that experience, to properly learn that lesson. But at least I can pass the story on to you. And you can pass it on to others. Because if you think you would have acted differently, that you would have seen through the ruse, think again.

I've rarely seen a more validating sentence in my entire life.

reblog to disturb jk rowling

i will always take the chance to disturb jk rowling

disturb jk rowling

currently disturbing jk rowling

enjoying disturbing jk rowling

proud to be disturbing jk rowling

good to know i've already reached one life goal

disturb jk Rowling :DD

i love distrubing jk Rowling 💗☝🏻

Great to know the fool is disturbed 🤨

Always happy to disturb jk rowling 💋

We've done it 🥰 never been prouder

my purpose in life has finally been fulfilled <3

wait till she clicks on the first harry potter fic on ao3 <3

Yeah I’ll reblog this again

I'll also reblog this again! Disturbing her's fun!

You are using an unsupported browser and things might not work as intended. Please make sure you're using the latest version of Chrome, Firefox, Safari, or Edge.