lenyberry:

fierceawakening:

foxnonny:

distressed-ravenclaw:

ladyjanelly:

shortstorylonger:

boogiepopular:

captainsaku:

I found these tags on that post asking adults to list their age. This is one of many who seem to agree with OP’s sentiment.

I think kids on the internet these days–and by “kids” I mean anyone under 18 honestly–need to be re-taught about internet safety and keeping your personal life away from your internet life, for safety reasons. I’ve been noticing this a lot lately, but I’ve found that the younger generations just never learned about Internet safety and keeping your personal information… well, personal.

Listen. I am a 90s kid in my late 20s. Yes, I do list my age on my description, because I feel comfortable doing so. But lately, there’s been an alarming trend where you, the younger generations, expect us to cater to all of your needs and keep you safe. And more, even.

The internet is a big, scary place. People my age and older, and some a little younger, grew up with the internet. We grew up with the dial-up noise and “get off the internet so I can use the phone!” and being limited in the way we interacted with the internet because it was expensive and strange and modems were not a thing. We also grew up with massive internet safety campaigns and worried parents scared of the unknown. Scared of the predator on the other side of the screen. It was normal for parents to be worried and assume predator until proven otherwise. 

As such, everyone in my generation and older grew up with a massive internet safety awareness. Don’t give out your personal information, don’t tell them where you live, your name, your age, where you study or what. Say nothing. Share nothing. Most of us have created for ourselves internet personas, much in the way that I am Saku on the internet but someone else in real life.

Yes, the line has blurred somewhat, and over time people have lost the alarm and concern that the internet caused in them. But most of us still remember what it was like back then. Most of us remember the safety rules, remember the techniques and tactics to tell if someone was or wasn’t telling the truth, remember the golden rule about not sharing personal information on the internet.

Because the internet back then was a big, scary place. And the internet now? It still is a big, scary place. It’s just more…. normal. More a part of our everyday lives that we all just sort of take for granted. 

What you kids are missing now is that we, as the older generations on the internet, the generations that grew up with the internet, still remember what it was like back then. And we still abide by our internet safety rules.

You all may think that sharing your age on the internet is not a big deal, but it is. Whatever you post on the internet can be used against you, regardless of how “safe” you feel. And one way or another, we are not responsible for you or your internet experiences. We protected ourselves back then, we policed and monitored our own internet content and use, and so should you.

The internet is not yours, it’s all of ours. And we got here first, way before you were even born, in some cases. I’ve been on the internet since I was 9, and that’s well over a decade and a half ago. If anything, fandom spaces are made up primarily of adults. Who do you think writes the good content that you consume? Who do you think produces the best art and the best fics? Who do you think writes the well-written, hot, sexy smut you shouldn’t be reading at 3 in the morning?

When we got here, we all assumed that everyone was older than us on the internet. For some reason that’s changed, and now people assume that everyone’s younger, or their age. But we’re all still here. We’ve been here for the past 15, 20 years. Even longer.

There is nothing wrong with us. We don’t owe you anything. You make your own safety on the internet, and you are the one responsible for making sure you’re safe. That’s not on us, it’s on you. 

If you’re uncomfortable talking to an adult on the internet, then you’re more than welcome to unfollow, or block, or whatever. But it’s not our responsibility that you do so. If you want to know something, ask.

Most importantly, we’re not all predators. Don’t shame or fault us for existing on the Internet. We were here before you, and we enjoy things just as you do. They aren’t yours, you don’t own them any more than we do. And we have a right to be here too, without having to bend over backwards for you just for existing.

I find it so weird that people post so much personal information nowadays.

When I first joined the internet in the late 90s, i was in my mid-teens. The big thing was ‘never tell anyone your name’ so I used my nickname. 20 years later… i still don’t use my real name online, and I’m used to being called Cassie that I get confused when someone uses my real name!

Shitty people lie, you kids know that, right? Like how many times have we heard the “He said he was  a senior in high school dating a sophomore, but he was actually 28 years old,” story? Why would you possibly believe if someone has their age on their profile? And if it’s just as likely to be a lie as the truth, why does it matter if it’s there at all? I honestly don’t understand this. 

This is actually so important, because I’m 16, and I haven’t seen internet safety campaigns since I was in lower primary (like reception, year 1, year 2) which was a decade ago, and it makes me wonder if they teach kids about internet safety anymore. We would get shown videos in ICT about people pretending to be young, and about cyber bullying, and I never hear about them anymore, but I don’t think my younger sister does either, and there seems to be an assumption that kids just know this because they’re given internet access from such a young age, but they’re still impressionable, and so are teenagers, and we get taught about revenge porn but not internet harassment and it can lead to young people being stalked or worse because they dont have it drilled into them that they shouldn’t trust strangers

While I definitely want to and will try to do everything I can to protect the experiences of kids online, it does worry me that the public internet safety campaigns of yore aren’t common anymore… hell, I wasn’t allowed to access the internet in my own room alone until I was 18 and while I definitely didn’t follow that rule (sorry parents) it made me wary of the waters I was wading into.

Also like one of the commenters mentioned, kids, just because someone listed their age and says all the right things doesn’t mean they’re not a predator. Often predators are really fucking good at looking like unproblematic harmless people.

Curate your own experience. Watch yourself. Don’t put everything online. Don’t trust someone just because they seem to have all their information upfront. If you sense something is off, get out, log off, and don’t be afraid to talk to a trusted adult if you need help. This is BASIC internet awareness.

Don’t share your age was basic safety yeah. To the point where I’m actually consciously choosing to share it and rationally fine with that but when I hit send on a post that has my age in it I feel weird.

The idea that I’m supposed to tell it to anyone who asks or be branded a creep is just *so weird* to me.

Seriously. Do you know how hard it would be to put a bunch of demographic lies in my about if I wanted to? It would take about 30 seconds, most of that just getting into the editor interface in the first place, and then odds are good no one would ever challenge me on it until and unless I did something really dumb like saying I’m a 14yo biracial black & asian orphaned cisgender boy from Kansas and then posting a selfie of my obviously caucasian, clearly adult, and also fairly easy to id as female self along with an older white woman I look VERY related to, with a nearby mountain range in the background with commentary saying JUST HAVING A GOOD DAY IN MY FRONT YARD WITH MY MOM and tagging it “selfie”.

I post my age as a COURTESY to those who find it awkward engaging with adults and because I sometimes share nsfw content that’s tagged appropriately and infrequent enough that I don’t feel comfortable tagging my entire BLOG as nsfw.  That is my compromise, with myself, and my own conscience; because I, personally, do not feel comfortable leaving it off. 

But it’s still a courtesy, and not anything I feel coerced to do, or required to do. 

justgazing:

“Dude is a slur” is the funniest take I’ve seen all week

I mean, if “An Old Fashioned Girl” can be believed, “Guy” used to mean “fool, ass, idiot, uncultured bumpkin” and similar. Used as in “I’ve made a real guy of myself” when having insulted or dishonored someone by intent or carelessness… but that’s very old slang indeed. I’ve certainly never seen dude used as a slur, only a genderneutral-leaning-masculine term of address. 

lenyberry:

house-of-crows:

lenyberry:

fierceawakening:

saoirse-callaghan-blog:

funereal-disease:

probably kicking a hornets’ nest

There’s this discourse that goes around every now and then. Someone says that kink and polyamory don’t belong under the general queer umbrella because something something respectability. Someone else rejoins that actually kinky and poly people have been part of queer communities for decades and that there’s more overlap than you might think. Kink and poly are queer, goes the second argument, because most kinksters and polyamorists are queer.

I don’t actually disagree with B here. The respectability-fueled splintering of queer communities is pretty recent; certain subcultures have historically been entwined with queerness. But I’m always a little confused after reading that discourse, because – well, as a straight poly person, where am I supposed to fit?

It’s not like I’m champing at the bit to be “allowed” to identify as queer or anything. I don’t really care about terminology. It’s hella cognitive whiplash, though – the fact that there’s so much overlap between queer issues and poly issues, but I feel like I’m not supposed to address that or compare notes because I’m in love with two men instead of two women.

I read something yesterday, for instance, along the lines of “straight privilege is never having to pretend your lover is just a friend”. Uh, I *do* pretend – at work, anyway – that one of my lovers is just a friend. But there’s so much ambient “don’t compare oppressions” bullshit that I’m pretty sure I’d be shouted down if I mentioned that, at least in my meatspace social circle. Because then I’d be some entitled straight (white) appropriator.

Sometimes it seems like even people who acknowledge that categories have changed in the past still think, explicitly or implicitly, that it would be blasphemy for them to change again. As though all of evolution were working up to *right now*. We didn’t think about poly people when we were forming the LGBT coalition, which must mean they don’t “belong” in some cosmic sense. The current boundaries are the most natural and correct ones, after all. Maps are territories, right?

I find it incredible when folks who must have heard queer antagonistic assholes be like ‘but if the gays marry then people will want polygamy and bestiality’ and yet still think that somehow Straight™️ folks are a-okay on the non-monogamy train.

Have people lost their shit? Like okay go call your parents and be like ‘oh yeah uh hi so I’m bringing my two partners to our next big family event’ or any similar sort of line and what do people think parents are going to do? Be like ‘yeah okay’? I mean aside from the tons of different negative responses from derision to rejection, having to explain yourself and be asked for personal details that people aren’t entitled to, there’s the sexualization of non-monogamous/polyamorous folks. Like ‘have you had a threesome’ and people assuming you’d be into them just bc you are non-monogamous.

Additionally consider legal issues! Marriage, kids, etc? What part of the law does anyone think is in ANY way prepared for this? Do all polyamorous folks even have marriage equality?

Honestly I’m tired. How do people not think of this stuff. How do people not realize that the above stuff sounds exactly like every other sort of bigotry directed at queer folks ever?

The kinky people I’ve known who’ve been credibly afraid of losing custody of kids over it, who’ve been outed at work, etc? Straight ones.

I am okay with the idea that “queer” means something that can’t include kink, but I wish people would specify what the thing it means IS, because it continues to confuse me that an ace cis person with an “opposite gender” partner is queer, but a kinky cis person with an “opposite gender” partner is not.

I don’t mean this in an exclusionist kind of way, I have no problem with all aces counting as queer. I just can’t figure out what queer IS if it’s not “what gender are you and what genders do you date” such that ace people who date certain people *are queer* but kinky or poly people *are not queer.*

I’m not an exclusionist any more but I still don’t see how you get “one of these things is obviously queer AND THE OTHER IS NOT.” Any definition I try on gets me either “neither of those things is queer” or “both of them are.”

What’s the operative definition here? Because I just *can’t seem to backform it.*

I’m not sure I personally 100% endorse @house-of-crows‘s take that “queer” is a political identity where if you Do Activism / suffer under a certain category of oppressions you count, while “LGBT” is a separate but often-overlapping identity that has to do with “are you both cisgender and heterosexual, or are you something different than that” (example given in his post was the middle-class Suburban White Gay Couple doing the “two kids and a picket fence” thing being, obviously, still gay but maybe not “queer” in that political sense unless they still get involved in The Issues and risk their own “respectability” in the process). But while I feel personally wobbly about endorsing those definitions (I have maybe-nitpicky but maybe-solid concerns that I haven’t totally fleshed out enough to explain them yet but they’re niggling, so I can’t say “yes I like that” but I also don’t… entirely… NOT like that), it would at least provide a useful distinction. One which would also include polyamorous and kinky people, at least potentially, under “queer” – even if they are both cisgender and heterosexual, because polyamory and kink both expose people to similar kinds of “you do sex/relationships Wrong” oppression types and give people who are those things strong reasons to personally care about and get involved with The Issues. 

To be fair, I’m not even 100% endorsing my own viewpoint re: LGBT+ vs Queer. I’ve got the weird niggly half-formed concerns too, but it’s the best thing I’ve been able to come up with after about six to eight years’ involvement; depending on how we’re counting those; so it’s what I’m working off… 

Personally, it’s to do with something you cannot change and be the same person. If you’re trans, you can’t suddenly not be trans because it makes your life easier. If you’re gay, you can’t suddenly NOT be that if you try really hard; bi, pan, ect. (this doesn’t mean I think bi/pan/multi-attraction people aren’t or can’t be Queer btw.) 

If you’re poly, and you can’t NOT have multiple simultaneously occurring relationships because it’s how you’re wired and it’s wrong to not have that.
If you’re kinky, and you can’t NOT be because relationship dynamics, power exchange, and kink is inherent to how you operate…

Granted, the last two as phrased are a lot more to do with “how do I relationship” than “how do I sex” but if we’re working off a split attraction model ANYWAY with love vs attraction, then the model holds up. 

And what you said re: respectability is spot on. The two “Auntie” lesbians in the split level down the street who garden and go to the farmer’s market are most definitely lesbians. Are they Queer tho…? I’d definitely say that the lesbians on motorcycles in leather who hang out at the dungeon or teach the caning class are Queer; especially if they’re teaching community history to the newbs. 

But I’d say that about the lesbians who hang out in lesbian/gay bars and involve themselves with the next generation so we don’t lose even MORE of our history as much as I’d say it about the wlw holding signs and marching in the street… But I’d say that about the cishet dude ALSO in leather who runs the dungeon; as long as he’s involving himself beyond the “pansexual” kink/leather community.

(the pansexual community… isn’t, really. It’s the het community under a new name because the hets realized they were alienating a wide swath of the community. What with it functionally being started by LGBT+/Queer people post-WW2. i’m NOT calling pansexuals straight, this is specifically about the labels used by the kink community.)

It’s definitely a thing of degrees, and nuance. But I’m honestly drawing a distinction between queer; explaining my identity takes too long; and Queer; politicized and/or activist identity connected to my attraction/relationship ID; as much as I’m drawing a distinction between LGBT+; experiencing attraction/love not cishet; and Queer; politicized and/or activist identity connected to attraction/love.

One of the concerns nagging at me was about how to distinguish “explaining my identity takes too long” queer from “politicized/activist ID” queer. Thanks for addressing that a little bit! It doesn’t entirely clear up the concern, but I appreciate knowing that I’m not the only one to think of it. 

In general I do think there needs to be SOME kind of… kink, polyam, LGBT+ coalition-umbrella word. Because we DO all deal with oppressions that stem from the view that we’re doing sex and/or relationships Wrong and Bad, and being straight and cisgender (like funereal-disease) doesn’t protect a person from the general oppressions levied against the polyamorous, any more than being monogamous and vanilla protects from homophobia or transphobia, any more than being monogamous and straight protects from kinkphobia. You just… get hit with less of the whole stack at once than someone who’s gay, trans, poly, AND kinky. That doesn’t mean the various specific subsets of the “you’re doing sex/relationships Wrong” oppression umbrella aren’t related, or that it’s a bad idea for us to congregate and work on dismantling the idea that consenting, non-abusive adult relationships (be they sexual or romantic or both or neither) can ever do any harm to the fabric of society or to other uninvolved people’s relationships just by existing and being accepted as ok. 

And I do like the idea of expanding “queer” while leaving LGBT+ for the “not straight and/or cisgender” definition (and whatever terms cluster under that one of course can still be used more specifically as needed or desired – people can still claim lesbian, gay, bi, trans, ace, genderqueer, so on and so forth as applies, while also acknowledging that those things all group up neatly under “LGBT+” which would under this proposed definition shift then fall under “queer” alongside “polyamorous” and “kinky” like siblings on some kinda family-tree diagram), because… well, etymologically it means something close to “odd” or “unusual” and… fair enough. We’re odd. I’m ok with acknowledging that there are more vanilla people than kinky people, more people who prefer monogamy than polyamory, more people who are straight and cisgender than who are gay/bi/pan/ace or trans, etc. I don’t think that’s inherently insulting in any way, or that saying someone else is also “queer” takes anything away from my own acknowledgement of my personal oddities, even if they’re odd in different ways than I am. I’ve been calling myself “odd” for a long damn time. Longer than I called myself queer, because I didn’t… really realize it right away, but I did realize that I just didn’t generally “fit in” with “normal” people. 

That’s basically my stance, yes. Were it not for the issues re: MOGAI I’d suggest that for the coalition term, but… I reeeeeeeeeeally don’t want to dig into that.

just-another-vcblog:

I have so many questions when it comes to Lestat “interviewing” people for his books, like in QotD, PL, and PLRoA. Did he just approach them and say “You seem neat, tell me all about you so I can tell everyone!” What were their reactions? Did some say no? And what about the interview itself? Did he take notes, or was he like Truman Capote with In Cold Blood and just like “nah, I don’t need notes or recorders or anything, I’ll just remember everything they say.” How much is his opinion in there? In QotD did he ask for all of Daniel’s venting about Armand or was he just trying to piss off Armand? In PL when talking to Rose did she really tall him, her sole father figure, that he was the #1 man she was attracted to and that’s why she was banging his clone passionately everyday? How did that go down? “Oh hey, by the way, your son is really good in bed.” Did she say this to mess with him? Did she just not give a fuck? Or did she think “he admitted to wanting to go down on his mom so it’s okay.” It’s not like he could have pulled this out of her mind with her trying and failing to conceal it since he made her. And more importantly, how did his interview with Rhoshamandes go down? “Hey, I know I chopped off your arm and you hate me, but can you tell me some of your innermost thoughts?” Was it an awkward conversation? Especially trying to write PLRoA, after Rhosh kidnapped him and possibly almost killed him. Or did he make it all up? I love thinking about the meta of these books but it brings up so many questions.

Well Pandora just wrote everything down for him in giant leatherbound notebooks and handed them off, so…?

ei-lena:

jaysbookofshadows:

answersfromvanaheim:

theravengoes:

oakenroots:

thetwistedrope:

oakenroots:

yuugureokami:

smarmykemeticpagan:

(not gonna include the person’s username cause why bother)

I’m not about to say anything that hasn’t already been said, but jesus christ, this is a obnoxious and unhelpful attitude to have toward relationships with deities in general, much less in a faith like kemeticism, where expecting reciprocity is a completely historically verifiable thing (same for akhu/ancestors!). People would summon, plead, cajole, or even threaten the gods in order to get something from them –protection, a good harvest, the gods’ blessing, etc. It is outright ahistorical to sanctimoniously tell people that they don’t have “the authority” to ask for what they need from a relationship with a deity, or be disappointed or angry when the deity doesn’t do what they said they would. 

It is way more common than people like this would have you think for gods to offer deals in order to gain worship, or certain favors. Talk to many of the people who have been spirit workers for a long time, and many of them will have this common SPG. Set specifically got me to actually change religions by not only promising to help me, but by actually, consistently helping me over a matter of years, in ways people like the person who made these tags would probably claim is sooooo unreasonable. Why should I, or anyone, feel that we owe gods worship if they would never lift a finger to help us? I have not a lot of money and even less time; I’m not gonna use it to endlessly flatter a cold, unfeeling icon who needs nothing from me but demands everything, based on nothing but their status as a god and my status as a human who can hear them; and the ones I work with consistently do not expect me to.

At the end of the day, people who say things like this are, in my opinion, just complaining about how other people’s religious practices don’t look the way that they personally think religious practices should look. What amazing insight and standing with the NTRW do you personally have that gives you the right to speak for all the gods on this, anyhow? You really think that you’re being “respectful” by telling people the gods are unanimously too haughty to care about any of their devotee’s “petty” needs or concerns? If your relationships with the NTRW consist of you giving nothing but praise and offerings without ever wanting to gain anything from it, more power to you, but you don’t get to tell everyone whose experiences are different from yours that they’re out of line.

Can we also talk about the bullshit assumption that a mortal’s requests of their gods are petty things that “merely” avert panic attacks? Like, that’s classist and ableist as fuck. I’m not just asking for a shiny toy, or a flashy car. This is my LIFE that I’m expecting help with. I’m trying to afford my healthcare, to keep a roof over my head and food in my child’s belly. I’m looking for help with literal, actual life and death matters for me and a child. These are not *petty* requests to avert a panic attack over inanities. Nevermind that panic attacks are serious physiological events. It’s downright insulting and callous and cruel as hell to snidely look down your nose at someone destitute and downtrodden and characterize their suffering and cries for help as petty and laughable.

Faith involves trust and I can neither trust nor worship a god who doesn’t give a shit about me. I don’t have time, money, or energy for that. If a god wants my attention then they can put out. I don’t consider myself “authority” over them, but it’s pretty straightforward that if you want someone to love you and be devoted to you and give you nice things, you aren’t going to ignore them and abuse them and manipulate them. Fuck out of here with that shit. No, gods aren’t “required” to return our worship with assistance, but humans are not machines and we need reciprocation and that is NOT unreasonable to desire or require!

It’s abusive as hell to tell someone that they don’t deserve reciprocal relationships with the gods just because they don’t “owe” us anything for our worship. Your sorry ass isn’t owed love by anyone but I’m pretty sure you’d be upset if your lover told you they weren’t going to do anything for you and that you asking for attention, help or affection was just going to prompt them to ignore you! I really hate people who honestly believe the gods have a right to abuse us and consume us. They don’t. They do not. I’m tired of hearing it.

I know this generally refers to the NTRW but I would like to chime in here. The Norse Pantheon, who I’ve been working with for most of my life? Throw temper tantrums like children when I forget about them. Odin will have it rain on a perfectly clear day JUST for the time it takes me to walk between buildings. When I appease him, the weather clears up, there’s always a cross breeze, I excel in school, and my sleep is deep and restful.

The same goes for Frigga. When she is displeased with me, my plants wilt, my cats get sick, I wake up freezing in the middle of the night, and my luck just cant get straight. When she is appeased, my garden thrives, my luck is just unreasonably good, my home is happy and peaceful and there’s always a parking spot in the shade for me.

A great amount of my “luck” in life can be attributed to them. I don’t ask them for much else. Success in individual situations, sure, but for the most part they provide for my well being in exchange for little more than a well tended garden and a flaming drink now and again. Yes, I expect these things of them, and generally they deliver on them with little trouble. We have an agreement. When I ask more from them, I provide more. When I’ve been neglectful, their protections and assistance stop.

tbh, i’m a little jealous of how present they are for you XDD There have been a few instances where stuff like this has happened (I think, at least. f’ex, one year my parents weren’t going to do literally anything for my bday until a “random” late-season storm cropped up outta nowhere and blew out the power so they had no choice but to take me out to eat), but its not a terribly common thing, afaict.

my personal spirits (read: menz) are far more like this, I feel like. they make sure that little things happen to make bigger things easier. which i think is the biggest suckfest about the conversations regarding the NTRW. I think many of us aren’t asking them to necessarily move heaven and earth, but jfc at least act like you give a shit about the tools you’re ruining…

For me, it takes very little to make me not want to work with a deity/spirit. I used to live in a mill house and the branch of the Swatara river running under the house was a fickle bitch. It ran cold when I went for a dip, the fish all ran off when I tried to fish, just a real bitch. Telling it “You’re not my river! I don’t own this land! I can ask the landlord to trim down the stream weeds, but I’m literally not allowed to do any maintenance to you!” was not a good enough excuse for it. So I refused to work with her. Stopped cleaning up the banks. She got lonely and suddenly herbs started growing in a patch near the bank. I agreed to clean her up once a week or so, and she agreed to stop being a jerk.

Negotiations are fun for me. I usually set a ceremony around the holidays for it, I’ll have to take pictures this year. So I set two shots, and 2 candles and address my gods. I light the shots, and throw a rune to each. Usually I get a “Hi!” Rune, like Gebo (Gift-Odin’s Rune) when addressing Odin, and Berkanan (Unity-Frigga’s rune), then I do my ceremonial shtick “Oh, Odin, (insert fancy title, fancy title, fancy title, fancy title) as I celebrate X I thank you for your wisdom and (insert list of favors granted), and I offer onto you this food and drink. I wish for you to join in my celebration. (At this point I sometimes pause because Odin is picky about his liquor and if he doesnt like what I’ve offered, his shot may blow out- Frigga likes cheap fruity wine mostly). Then I spend a bit talking about what I need to get done (see: what I want)so that I will have more time and energy to offer to my devotions (see:what they want). Here is where I list out what I plan to do in my garden, the projects I want to complete, habits I want to start).

As I go through the list of things I want help with, and what I plan to do for them, I will cast a rune. Runes like “Joy” “Dawn” “Rebirth” are affirmatives that they like what I’m saying. Runes like “Disruption” “Thorn” “Mystery” and “The Devil” mean they don’t agree with me. Sometimes they feel I’m not offering enough. This is usually where it turns into a drinking match between me and Odin. I will say “I want to do X but I need X from you. I will do X in return” and the shot will go out and refuse to be re-lit four or five times. Or I will get the same “negative” rune in response too many times in a row.

So I break it down “Are you saying you CAN’T do this for me?” (YES/NO)

If yes, “Are you saying you WONT do this for me?” (YES/NO)

If yes, “So you don’t WANT to do this?” (YES/NO)

On and on getting more specific and determining whether Odin or Frigga are being greedy, or unreasonable, and if I can negotiate (Frigga has shut me down until I agreed to switch to non-chemical fertilizer-took me a long bit to figure out what she wanted)

Sometimes it’s silly stuff, Odin will be disagreeable when talking about me learning languages because he wants me to practice my Norse.

Sometimes it’s serious stuff. I’ve basically been scolded by Frigga and Odin about my money management and self care and relationships. Example:

Me: Give me luck with money.

Odin: No.

Me: Why not?

Odin: *Gives me the Ox Rune* Work harder!

Me: That’s not an option. I’m a full time student remember?

Odin: *Gives me the rune of thought* Budget better!

Me: *hangs my head in shame and revises my money goals, telling them how I will spend less on coffee in order to start putting aside for debt*

Odin: *Gives me Jera, Rune of success*

Going back to the original point for a second:

One of my favorite things from my time in Celtic (Irish) Recon was learning about the toscad.

In Brehon law, one of the most important social structures was the concept of good hospitality. You were *required* to meet any need of a guest that lay within your power to do so, and failing to do so was not only a stain on your character, but literally threatened the fabric of society/the universe.

Naturally, this became a way for the impoverished to get their proper due from those in power. The toscad was the method of choice – a ritual hunger strike on the doorstep of the one who had wronged you or otherwise failed to provide adequately. By refusing the social custom of partaking of your host’s food, and thus fulfilling their social obligation, you forced their hand, giving them one of two choices: give you what you demanded, or have your death on their hands (one of the absolute worst breaks of hospitality imaginable). This is where the Irish prison hunger strikes were derived from during the fight for independence.

Now this is all well and good, you say, but this is about humans dealing with other humans, not gods and gods are above…

Nope. Stop right there. Here’s where you’re wrong. *The Tuatha are bound by Brehon law*. Period. All the laws apply equally to the spiritual realm as the physical. If Nuada isn’t upholding his kingly obligation to provide for his worshipper/subject (aka, you), *you have every right* to plop yourself down on his (metaphorical) threshold and tell him to fuck himself and you’re not moving or eating until you get what you want.

Tl;dr The Irish strongarmed their gods to get what they want and you can too. Fuck this monotheistic idea of divinity being all powerful and demanding of subservience and groveling

In Heathenry, this sort of reciprocal relationship is kind of the point of giving offerings. You give a gift, the expectation is that the deities gift you in return. If the deities are not gifting you in return, something is wrong. 

The op clearly has a very Christianic view of gods, and that’s disappointing. You can get so much closer to your gods than the Christian church will ever allow or think possible.

Any one-sided relationship where one party is expected to give and give without asking for reciprocation, and the other party is allowed to take and take and return nothing, is inherently abusive. 

You are under no obligation to allow humans OR gods to treat you abusively. Nor any other entity. 

fierceawakening:

tinygiantrobotsinouterspace:

elodieunderglass:

drgaellon:

jackironsides:

awed-frog:

IT GETS EVEN BETTER

UTTERLY DESTROYED.

lmao @fozmeadows I see you lighting a guy’s funeral pyre

Funeral pyres are reserved for people who died with honor and distinction.

This is more stake-and-bonfire.

Good. Lord. How in the hell.

And people claim that rich people are philanthropists and benefactors if we only only just stop taxing them.

BS. They’re a part of society, they should contribute to it like everyone else.

lenyberry:

fierceawakening:

saoirse-callaghan-blog:

funereal-disease:

probably kicking a hornets’ nest

There’s this discourse that goes around every now and then. Someone says that kink and polyamory don’t belong under the general queer umbrella because something something respectability. Someone else rejoins that actually kinky and poly people have been part of queer communities for decades and that there’s more overlap than you might think. Kink and poly are queer, goes the second argument, because most kinksters and polyamorists are queer.

I don’t actually disagree with B here. The respectability-fueled splintering of queer communities is pretty recent; certain subcultures have historically been entwined with queerness. But I’m always a little confused after reading that discourse, because – well, as a straight poly person, where am I supposed to fit?

It’s not like I’m champing at the bit to be “allowed” to identify as queer or anything. I don’t really care about terminology. It’s hella cognitive whiplash, though – the fact that there’s so much overlap between queer issues and poly issues, but I feel like I’m not supposed to address that or compare notes because I’m in love with two men instead of two women.

I read something yesterday, for instance, along the lines of “straight privilege is never having to pretend your lover is just a friend”. Uh, I *do* pretend – at work, anyway – that one of my lovers is just a friend. But there’s so much ambient “don’t compare oppressions” bullshit that I’m pretty sure I’d be shouted down if I mentioned that, at least in my meatspace social circle. Because then I’d be some entitled straight (white) appropriator.

Sometimes it seems like even people who acknowledge that categories have changed in the past still think, explicitly or implicitly, that it would be blasphemy for them to change again. As though all of evolution were working up to *right now*. We didn’t think about poly people when we were forming the LGBT coalition, which must mean they don’t “belong” in some cosmic sense. The current boundaries are the most natural and correct ones, after all. Maps are territories, right?

I find it incredible when folks who must have heard queer antagonistic assholes be like ‘but if the gays marry then people will want polygamy and bestiality’ and yet still think that somehow Straight™️ folks are a-okay on the non-monogamy train.

Have people lost their shit? Like okay go call your parents and be like ‘oh yeah uh hi so I’m bringing my two partners to our next big family event’ or any similar sort of line and what do people think parents are going to do? Be like ‘yeah okay’? I mean aside from the tons of different negative responses from derision to rejection, having to explain yourself and be asked for personal details that people aren’t entitled to, there’s the sexualization of non-monogamous/polyamorous folks. Like ‘have you had a threesome’ and people assuming you’d be into them just bc you are non-monogamous.

Additionally consider legal issues! Marriage, kids, etc? What part of the law does anyone think is in ANY way prepared for this? Do all polyamorous folks even have marriage equality?

Honestly I’m tired. How do people not think of this stuff. How do people not realize that the above stuff sounds exactly like every other sort of bigotry directed at queer folks ever?

The kinky people I’ve known who’ve been credibly afraid of losing custody of kids over it, who’ve been outed at work, etc? Straight ones.

I am okay with the idea that “queer” means something that can’t include kink, but I wish people would specify what the thing it means IS, because it continues to confuse me that an ace cis person with an “opposite gender” partner is queer, but a kinky cis person with an “opposite gender” partner is not.

I don’t mean this in an exclusionist kind of way, I have no problem with all aces counting as queer. I just can’t figure out what queer IS if it’s not “what gender are you and what genders do you date” such that ace people who date certain people *are queer* but kinky or poly people *are not queer.*

I’m not an exclusionist any more but I still don’t see how you get “one of these things is obviously queer AND THE OTHER IS NOT.” Any definition I try on gets me either “neither of those things is queer” or “both of them are.”

What’s the operative definition here? Because I just *can’t seem to backform it.*

I’m not sure I personally 100% endorse @house-of-crows‘s take that “queer” is a political identity where if you Do Activism / suffer under a certain category of oppressions you count, while “LGBT” is a separate but often-overlapping identity that has to do with “are you both cisgender and heterosexual, or are you something different than that” (example given in his post was the middle-class Suburban White Gay Couple doing the “two kids and a picket fence” thing being, obviously, still gay but maybe not “queer” in that political sense unless they still get involved in The Issues and risk their own “respectability” in the process). But while I feel personally wobbly about endorsing those definitions (I have maybe-nitpicky but maybe-solid concerns that I haven’t totally fleshed out enough to explain them yet but they’re niggling, so I can’t say “yes I like that” but I also don’t… entirely… NOT like that), it would at least provide a useful distinction. One which would also include polyamorous and kinky people, at least potentially, under “queer” – even if they are both cisgender and heterosexual, because polyamory and kink both expose people to similar kinds of “you do sex/relationships Wrong” oppression types and give people who are those things strong reasons to personally care about and get involved with The Issues. 

To be fair, I’m not even 100% endorsing my own viewpoint re: LGBT+ vs Queer. I’ve got the weird niggly half-formed concerns too, but it’s the best thing I’ve been able to come up with after about six to eight years’ involvement; depending on how we’re counting those; so it’s what I’m working off… 

Personally, it’s to do with something you cannot change and be the same person. If you’re trans, you can’t suddenly not be trans because it makes your life easier. If you’re gay, you can’t suddenly NOT be that if you try really hard; bi, pan, ect. (this doesn’t mean I think bi/pan/multi-attraction people aren’t or can’t be Queer btw.) 

If you’re poly, and you can’t NOT have multiple simultaneously occurring relationships because it’s how you’re wired and it’s wrong to not have that.
If you’re kinky, and you can’t NOT be because relationship dynamics, power exchange, and kink is inherent to how you operate…

Granted, the last two as phrased are a lot more to do with “how do I relationship” than “how do I sex” but if we’re working off a split attraction model ANYWAY with love vs attraction, then the model holds up. 

And what you said re: respectability is spot on. The two “Auntie” lesbians in the split level down the street who garden and go to the farmer’s market are most definitely lesbians. Are they Queer tho…? I’d definitely say that the lesbians on motorcycles in leather who hang out at the dungeon or teach the caning class are Queer; especially if they’re teaching community history to the newbs. 

But I’d say that about the lesbians who hang out in lesbian/gay bars and involve themselves with the next generation so we don’t lose even MORE of our history as much as I’d say it about the wlw holding signs and marching in the street… But I’d say that about the cishet dude ALSO in leather who runs the dungeon; as long as he’s involving himself beyond the “pansexual” kink/leather community.

(the pansexual community… isn’t, really. It’s the het community under a new name because the hets realized they were alienating a wide swath of the community. What with it functionally being started by LGBT+/Queer people post-WW2. i’m NOT calling pansexuals straight, this is specifically about the labels used by the kink community.)

It’s definitely a thing of degrees, and nuance. But I’m honestly drawing a distinction between queer; explaining my identity takes too long; and Queer; politicized and/or activist identity connected to my attraction/relationship ID; as much as I’m drawing a distinction between LGBT+; experiencing attraction/love not cishet; and Queer; politicized and/or activist identity connected to attraction/love.

gothiccharmschool:

house-of-crows:

Before and after The Ceremony of the Fangs~ with thanks to @gothiccharmschool for the concept and hooking me on this brand!!!

My newest addition to the Army of Darkness has no name yet, but I made his little wizard cloak myself in an hour from fleece and I am INCREDIBLY happy with how even all the seams came out and how well it fits!! 

Bun is a Jellycat Bashful Bunny in Beige, size Medium. (12″) His cloak is the second pattern I’ve drafted for the Jellycat animals, and definitely the best looking! I’m going to run up a few more for my other buns and see how they look. By the end of this Halloween season all my bunnies might just be in little black furry wizard cloaks with their big bows tied more like cravats~

He’s wearing the last set of fangs I bought this past Halloween; pretty sure they’re Scarecrow brand; and four fake gauge piercings (just stuck harmlessly through the weave of the fur). I lined up the fangs with the mouth stitches, and sewed them in securely with light colored thread. The jawbone is a Javelina that my Partner brought down Himself. 

Look at this adorable bun! The Evil Bunny Alliance welcomes you, yet-to-be-named one!

This lil guy is named Rh’yleh! He informed me so a few weeks back, and I lost the post. Dang it. Anyrate, Tahli Xhexania has gotten her comfortable-evil robe + hood, and looks STUNNING, as one would expect from the more respectable member of my little army.

image

Rh’yleh even stole one of Tahli’s velvet ear bows for a bowtie~

image

My little colony wanted to know if perchance Ms Merricat; she’s a Medium sized isn’t she?; would like a cloak of her own…? And if she would enjoy possessing such a thing, would she prefer it plain, or perhaps with some embellishments, like Tahli’s cravat?