reblog to pet prev

MEN I HAVE A TIP FOR U. MOAN. MAKE NOISE. PLEASE LET OUT SOME WHIMPERS EVEN.

Day 14: Zombie

I wanted to put him in a burger King crown so bad

i see your fight club forcemasc and raise you school of rock lmao

id: jack black with chin length hair and bangs wearing a tan paisley shirt and brown bowtie, with a guitar strapped over his shoulder as he talks excitedly, text reads “fat transmascs are hot and handsome as they are” end id.

Reblog to give the person you reblogged from the ability to finish their WIPs

i'm such a big fan of laios using being well fed as proof that he's serious. like there's so many techbros & etc who will use not eating breakfast as proof that they're productive & just in general, the idea of being "too busy to eat" is getting more common (which is exactly what toshiro is doing here!) but laios is like. no. i'm so serious about this i'm thinking about what comes next. i'm so serious about this i'm making sure my body can do everything it can when i need it.

the fact that everyone in the party took care of themselves & carefully planned out their route & when they'd take breaks is what made them so successful. they always made sure to understand their limits

Me at bowling: yaaay I'm having so much fun with my friends yaaaay ^u^

The pins:

psychiatrists do not provide access to medications. they selectively restrict access to medications. regardless of your personal relationship with your individual psychiatrist, the broader power structures in place are that psychiatrists are a barrier you must cross (again + again + again) to receive psychiatric medications. some people are shoved across this barrier against their will; some people are forbidden to ever cross it. but if you begin to understand this as a system of restricting access rather than providing access, you will understand that abolishing psychiatry would not destroy your access to medication, but instead make it easier.

before accusing me of trying to "take away your access to meds" through my activism or opinions, ask yourself this: who in your life, right now, has the power to restrict your access to psychiatric medication? why? what expectations do you have to meet in order to continue to access these medications? who enforces them? can you think of anything you might do or say that would cause you to lose access to these medications? have you ever had to pretend to be feeling or doing something differently in order to retain access to medications? have you ever had your medications arbitrarily changed against your will due to insurance, financial, or behavioral issues? have you ever had to 'prove' yourself in order to obtain specific medications (perhaps stimulants or opioids?)? has a provider ever threatened to take away your prescriptions in response to something you said or did? have you been told or do you believe that you need your access restricted because you "can't be trusted" or "lack insight"?

if want to find the people trying to limit your access to medication, i suggest starting with the provider name on your pill bottles.

something to keep in mind while reading: i experience psychosis, i am professionally diagnosed with a variety of extremely stigmatized mental health diagnoses, and i identify strongly with the label "borderline."

sooner or later, the ~mental health awareness~ and ~neurodivergent awareness~ movements as a whole are going to have to reckon with the fact that mental health diagnoses are labels put on classifications of behavior patterns, and those behavior patterns can be actively harmful to other people. and what i mean by that is that classifying people's behavior is not identifying ontological attributes of people's personalities or biology; it's loosely grouping different behavior patterns into categories and slapping a label on them. there is no difference between "having borderline personality disorder" and "enacting a behavior associated with borderline personality disorder;" the only criteria for the diagnoses are that you enact some or all of the behaviors associated with the label.

the idea of "these stigmatized diagnoses do not make you a bad person" is objectively correct, in that the label "bad person" is inherently not useful and erases the material factors behind someone's behavior. however, framing mental health diagnoses as if they are some ontological attribute of the self divorced from behavior doesn't actually serve to "destigmatize" mental health as a whole.

people labeled as mentally ill are put in this catch-22 where we either admit that some of our maladaptive behaviors associated with diagnoses can be harmful to others (and thus are used as rhetorical supports for how mental illness labels are describing an ontologically bad and evil category of person), or we push the party line that "mental illness doesn't make you a bad person" and divorce any harmful behaviors entirely from the mental illness label of the person performing them (thus further stigmatizing those of us who have maladaptive and externally harmful behavior patterns associated with our diagnoses, as of course these can't be "because" of our mental illness--ignoring the fact that the mental illness label does not exist outside of our behavior to begin with).

it's a well-documented fact that the DSM buries the role of trauma and other material factors in shaping the behaviors it categorizes to begin with; the desire to divorce the label from any materially harmful behaviors it ascribes to itself is yet another case of ~mental health awareness~ pushing the responsibility of reshaping society and interacting with trauma onto the individuals suffering under these systems of oppression and systemically enabled trauma. in order to actually do the dirty work of addressing material harm, we need to get down into the weeds of why someone enacted that harmful behavior to begin with--what environment that maladaptive behavior arose from, and what material factors need to be addressed in order to solve that behavior and redirect it into healing and positive interactions.

like... that's the problem, at the end of the day. in order to address harm, you need to humanize and understand the person doing harm. shoving people off into more and more categories of "bad person" does nothing to actually, materially address the harm caused, and further enables more harm in the future. mental health labels, if used in a lateral and non-oppressive way, should be used as shorthand to refer to a category of behavior in order to more fully understand the material factors that go into shaping that behavior, in order to better promote healing and a functional community. there should not be a stigma around admitting that a label could describe someone who commits actions that are materially harmful, and that label is applied directly because of their behaviors--to say otherwise is just shifting who the group it's okay to oppress is, rather than trying to agitate for collective liberation.

(note: plenty of behaviors associated with mental health labels are not harmful to begin with. we could also do a lot better by examining how we conceive of "harm", because "someone existing with an emotion that makes you feel uncomfortable" or "someone doing something you think is weird" is not it. but that's not what this post is about, so i am choosing not to address it in-depth.)

this too shall pass

"abolish prisons-" *good, good, i'm nodding along in agreement* "-and replace them with forced residential psychiatric care facilities!" *my soul has visibly left my body, my eyes have rolled back into my head and you can read the phrase "TELL ME YOU'VE NEVER BEEN AN INVOLUNTARY PATIENT AT A RESIDENTIAL PSYCHIATRIC CARE FACILITY WITHOUT TELLING ME YOU'VE NEVER BEEN AN INVOLUNTARY PATIENT AT A RESIDENTIAL PSYCHIATRIC CARE FACILITY" tattooed on the backs of my eyeballs*

This war has to stop. Israel is stopping aid from getting into Gaza and people are starving.