#you are not less valid for being ace whether you are religious or not | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

buildingrelationshipsinanarchy · 4 years

Text

A New Intimacy Model

So what spurred this project is a culmination of a few things. Namely, frustration with the imprecise and incomprehensible words, Platonic, Romantic, and Sexual. The English language hasn’t been great at adapting the words for personal relationships as our times and values change.

I fell into Anarchism only very recently, stumbling into the language of ‘relationship anarchy’ through the internet in discussion with forms of polyamory years ago when I started this blog. Over the last year, I’ve been getting into radical politics and finding how my un-politicized opinions were validated, and then stretched the more I learned and studied up. While I’m still learning more about Radical politics, Anarchism, Marxism, Queer and Feminist theory specifically, the more I wanted to link some of my perspectives on intimate relationships with these political and theoretical texts.

“The Personal is Political.” - Carol Hanisch, Feminist Author.

@mythr1der wrote a post detailing a bit of the frustration I also share in regards to how the Dichotomy between Platonic and Sexual (which almost all definitions of Romance boil back into), leave much to be desired when discussing attraction, desire, intimacy and relationships in general. I believe that this very simple dichotomy reflects, oddly enough, capitalism and the history of the role of state power in culture. I rant a little bit about it as a response to @mythr1der‘s post here.

It’s long, and incomplete, but I proposed an idea of just building entirely new words, so we can build an entirely new map for talking about love, desire, attraction, and relationships that actually discuss what its like to be next to someone you like to be next to!

What is intimacy? It’s closeness right? To be near some ‘intimate’ part of another person, or them near something meaningful about why you’re you. I wanted to start this series by talking about what it means to be close to someone. If you remember my birthday without Facebook, that might make me feel a bit special. But if you remember how badly I was abused by an old friend, its because I trusted you enough to share some of the sadness that I’m not as loud about.

Intimacy isn’t always trauma, sometimes its tears of joy hearing that your cousin is out of prison, or the laughter of your friends. Being close to each other in a hyper-digitized age is a bit tricky, but phone calls, facetime, snapchat are only some of the tools we use to keep each other updating on what we’re feeling. Whether its about our love life, sex life, work life, or home life, just sharing that information can be real special, and bonding.

When we say that we have friends or that we are [Queer] Platonic Partners, does that mean we’ve decided how often we’re gonna talk or what we’re gonna talk about? What if we just send each other memes or rant about politics? Am I supposed to devalue those interactions because they aren’t the person I’m crying on the phone with?

Intimacy can be as deep as childhood scars and as simple as surprising me with my favorite snack. It all just means you know who I am, what I like, and what I care about. I want to intentionally forge those connections. And this why I set these definitions first.

Other Words:

A Daekkon (n.) would be person/partner whom you’ve developed intentionally this kind of relationship with.

If you desired this kind of relationship with a certain person, you’d be feeling Daekeen (adj.) for/about that person.

People who are desiring or actively doing these activities together are Daekkoning (v.).

This would be understood as Daekkonic (adj.) behavior; as in, “My roomate isn’t super talkative with me, but is deakkonic (adj.) with Sandra from the Mosque.”

“Tom is going through it, he’s felt deakkonically (adv.) deprived since the move.”

________________________________________________________________

In our sex-negative, ironically repressed culture, we seem to think that if you’re touching your bodies together at all, it means *something*. I want to remove that idea. I want to reclaim physical affection. I want to be touch and be touched by others. I don’t want my afab friends who have experienced some sort of sexual violence in their lives, to ever feel weary about the fact that I’m physically affectionate. It’s been my #1 Love Language for the last 10 years.

Fighting r*pe culture is a full-time fight, but I think adding a word, and therefore an idea[l], can be useful in reclaiming safety, and boundaries regarding bodily autonomy, for all of us. Clear communication and respected boundaries and asking consent for everything are the bedrock we need to continually practice. And as trust builds, I believe this could be very useful theoretically tool for improving the quality of our relationships and help create clearer discussion about our individual boundaries, needs, and desires. I feel like this leads me to a relevant question. What activities are inherently platonic, romantic or sexual? Is holding hands inherently romantic when almost all of us have done it with a friend? What about those of us who are religious or spiritual and have held hands with members of church, mosque or synagogue; do you think we’re out here non-stop blushing at the Pastor? Or when we held hands with family members? Doesn’t sound like it holds up, huh?

What about snuggling a roommate? Holding a teammate while celebrating a victory? The kiss my bestfriend gave me on our shared birthday dinner? Are we left to through our Aro and Ace friends’ out of the discussion, just because our culture has bad takes on sex and romance as the only forms possible of significant physical touch? Physical touch is such an important way to communicate love and affection, as well as care, concern, and comfort. They don’t get to cast their shadow on this space anymore!

Other Words:

If you had this desire for someone, or wanted to approach cultivating these forms of affection in a relationship, you could say you’re feeling Phaddish (adj.) for that person.

.Participating or initiating acts of a non-sexual physical intimacy Phadronic (adj.) quality are said to be phade-ing/phading (v.).

A Phadrone (n.) could be the name of a person/partner you share this kind of relationship with.

Phadroning (v.) would the act of cultivating this kind of intimacy with another person.

Phadronically (adv.) could describe a certain level of intimacy implicit in a physical touch between to particular people.

________________________________________________________________

Now lets talk about Sex. That’s the thing the everyone’s mind always gravitates to when discuss words like, intimacy, attraction, desire. It’s the thing we want to stay away from when you use the Platonic or Friendly. But, lets be real. Haven’t many of us had sex with people didn’t even consider friends? Or people who became our “Strictly Platonic” friends after we may have had sex, once or several times, with them?

People who gravitate toward polyamory or non-monogamy tend have had a “hoe-phase.” The boundary between friend and lover, or partner and fuckbuddy have been blurred in a good chunk of people’s lives. Non-monogamous or not, I think it’s useful to talk directly about our sexual experiences, desires, fantasies, and how different it can be with different people, or in different stages of our lives. But what makes an experience sexual? Maybe that sounds redundant or obvious; I mean, it’s got the word SEX in it, maybe that’s got something to do with it? But maybe not...

Lets ask an odd question. Is sex inherently sexual? Who wouldn’t assume the answer is automatically yes? Well, my first thought is to talk to those in the Adult Entertainment industry or friends of ours who are sex-workers, in whatever capacity. Is every client sexy or shoot erotic? Those of us who have sex, have we never been doing it and been bored through most of at least one experience?

If sex is inherently sexual, why do we have so many Sexual Health Educators, Marriage Counselors, Pornstars, Yoga Teachers, Personal trainers and Writers telling us how to have sexy sex? Dating Coaches and Websites, telling us how we are getting something that’s supposed to sound so easy wrong.

I’ve come to the opinion that sex isn’t about body parts, genitalia, certain body motions, or even clothing [or lack thereof]. I believe that sex, or eroticism, is all about the context and the people involved. There’s nothing inherently sexy about fruit, or food in general, but if woman eats a banana in public, there are at least several men in area thinking of something than her healthy food choices.

This is why talking about sex directly is good. And understanding it as an energy that you imbue to any activity or circumstance, could help have better sex; and and on the flip-side, show us how we may need to more aware of how we may take up space with our body language. I do also feel, that in part, some of our Ace friends (those who aren’t sex repulsed), may be able to find some resonance with this model; sex doesn’t have to feel passionate or any particular way at all (other than good?), because sex isn’t about sexiness, but about human connection and pleasure.

Other Words:

Serotic (adj.) activities include any activity that is engaged due to, or is infused with, sexual desire and/or erotic intention. It also describes the type of desire you’re feeling for another person.

A Serato (n.) is any person you engage in serotic activities or feelings with.

An activity that was originally un-serotic (adj.), but became sexually or erotically charged, we could described as having become Serotically (adv.) charged.

When you are cultivating or charging an act with serotic energy, you are Seroticizing (v.) that activity

________________________________________________________________

Lately, especially since diving into Radical Politics, I find less and less desire in defining Who I Am as a part of a relationship unit. It’s an overlay from monogamy, The Couple being the only social unit that is recognized, as it’s necessary to the Nuclear Family; a super important thing for Capitalism to sustain itself. The relationships I cultivate with others, with whatever forms of intimacy or interactions therein, cant be understood by that model. I am more than my interactions with a handful of people; I am a human person, and my engagement with the world isn’t actually reducible to whether or not I’m having sex with someone or not.

We’ve talked about multiple forms of intimacy, and some of the desires or interests associated with them. Have you noticed that in the desire, or need, to discuss relationships on a basis of, ‘sex: yes or no?’, that we haven’t talked about the webs that form because we are all reliant on each other to survive? Not everyone in your community or workplace or online spaces, you’ll get to know or talk to. Do they, as people, matter less because they aren’t in your contacts list or your DM’s?

This is a space where not a lot of us to tend think or engage as much. An easy word to discuss this space is community. But is a community the people or the place you spend your time, whether online or off? Is the community the place you live and your neighbors? Is it the people who may share some of your identifiers or face similar forms of oppression, despite living in a different city, state, country?

We are multi-dimensional beings, and with the use of technology, there are so many ways to form relationships, and share resources. I think the ‘community’ is any space you find yourself in, which means that mutual aid is something you are always able to engage in. Whether it’s feeding the homeless guys who hang out by the intersection, or dropping a few bucks in a trans kid’s venmo, mutual aid is so much easier.

But what if that feels so inconsequential? It’s not! But it does, from time to time, feel like the problems of the world are so big, and that you and so many you know are suffering in ways you wish you could help. Well, community organizing is always happening somewhere, online and off. It becomes important to join up with others in order feel like we can actually make a positive impact on the lives of others. We don’t have to wait on a government who’s interest isn’t ours, don’t have to wait for some politician to fail on a promise to Make Things Better.

We have each other, and we are all we really have. At the end of the day, all of our concepts are man-made. COVID-19 showed us how drastically things could be different if the people in power made decisions that actually benefited us. A lot of us understand the need to do something. Capitalism says that competition is what drove human kind into evolution, the fight for survival in a meaningless, terrifying world. Anarchism, as I’m learning, throws the whole idea in the trash where it belongs.

Peter Kropotkin, whose been called both the Godfather and Santa Claus of Anarchism, penned in Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution (1902), “under any circumstances sociability is the greatest advantage in the struggle for life.”

We are better off together. Capitalism and the property relationships in our compulsively monogamous society try to tell us other wise. We don’t have to follow that model.

Other Words:

To Mudshop (v.) is to build a mudship with a particular person, organinzation, or community; Mud-shopping (v.).

A Mudshipper (n.) is an individual in a mudship of any scale.

I’ve said a lot. I hope this reads as accessible to as many people as it can be. I built this because I want to tell the people in my life why I love them as dearly as I do. And that I’d love to build relationships with as many awesome, lovely people as I can.

If you try to use the words Romantic and Platonic while you look at this post, and find it almost impossible, I’ve done my job.

I hope those words die along with oppressive ideas they uphold.

426 notes · View notes

onlyinraresouls-blog · 4 years

Text

LGBTQ & the Wizarding World

Put under a cut cause I’m just rambling and it’s a little long.

Disclaimer: This is about in character/in world LGTBQ+ opinions within the Wizarding World/Harry Potter franchise, not about Rowling's personal feelings on the topic(s) in the real world. Somehow, it came up for me a few years ago that I was curious about what the wizarding world thought about same-sex couples and things of that nature. It doesn’t take a hard Google to find her replying to someone on Twitter, saying wizards don’t concern themselves with someone’s sexual orientation, it’s all about magic for them, it’s only muggles (and therefor possibly implied, muggleborns) that care

It also brings up a Pottercast interview, where she has the following exchange:

MA: We wanna talk about Dumbledore so bad. We know that you've created worldwide intrigue when you said that he is gay. But I wanted to ask you about homosexuality in the Wizarding World in general. Is it a taboo?

JKR: Now, that's something I never thought of. I would think that that would be-- it would be exactly what it is in the Muggle World. But the greatest taboo in the Wizarding World is, well, for some wizards... I mean if we're talking about prejudiced people within the Wizarding World, what they care most about is your blood status. So I think you could be, um, gay, pure-blood, and totally without any kind of criticism from the Lucius Malfoys of the world. I don't think that would be something that would interest him in the slightest. But, you know, I can't answer for all witches and wizards because I think in matters of the heart, it would be directly parallel to our world.

She doesn’t elaborate any more on what she means by “exactly what it is in the Muggle world, whether she means that the muggle world influences it (so as it becomes more accepted in the muggle world, it’s more accepted in the wizarding world), or if she just means there are some people that support it, and some people who hate it. It feels like more the latter, especially as she gives Lucius as an example of not caring.

I do, however, feel like this isn’t portrayed well in any bit of official Potter storytelling. I think Lucius Malfoy would absolutely care, but for a different reason than a muggle might. Mostly muggles (I.E regular humans) see it as a sin/against their religious beliefs, or just unnatural... while some people defend the idea of it being “unnatural” by saying a same-sex couple can’t create, I think it’s that defence that would actually be the bigger issue in the wizarding world; a lot of pureblood families, such as the Malfoys, want a big, pure lineage. You know what a gay pureblood wouldn’t be able to provide? An heir. So in a way, do I think Lucius would care if Harry (being a half-blood) or someone he doesn’t care about being in a same-sex relationship? No. But if Draco, or Bellatrix, or Regulus was gay/in a same-sex relationship? Yes, I feel like he’d have a negative opinion, unless/until he was informed of a way that they’d still produce a pureblood heir (we, of course, don’t know whether or not artificial insemination or things of that sort are available in the wizarding world.)

So some purebloods would probably care if it affected their lineage/may judge other families if it affected their lineage -- I don’t imagine the Weasleys, despite being pureblood and a family in the Sacred 28, would care if any of their children were in a same-sex relationship. But say the Weasley’s only had one child, or even just using Bill as an example... say their proper heir was in a same-sex relationship. Then yes, I could see people like Lucius turning their nose up at the fact it would put a damper on their bloodline, just like if they ended up with someone who was half-blood or (le-gasp) muggle-born.

Not every pureblood family is obsessed with purity and lineage, which I already gave an example of with the Weasleys. So where does that leave the rest of the majority of the wizarding population?

Muggleborns are pretty simple. You can take her statement of “exactly what it is in the muggle world” a bit more literally. It would be influenced by the world they grew up in. A muggleborn who went to school with Albus Dumbledore would be far less likely to be accepting of his homosexuality, than a muggleborn who went to school with Albus Potter, going on the hypothetical that Albus Potter would be less than heterosexual, of course. But of course, that doesn’t mean every Muggleborn is homophobic. It varies from family to family, be it 200 years ago, or today. It would be a mix of their family, their environment, yes the times, and also their own personal opinion. All they have to go on at that point is the muggle world.

As for the half-bloods, and the purebloods who don’t take importance in blood status, I assume the second bit of what I said about Muggleborns could be said for them -- it just varies from family to family. As far as we know, there isn’t really “religion” to get in the way, but there is still the idea of it just being “unnatural”, though I think half-bloods would be more likely to have a higher population of homophobes, in comparison to purebloods - they still have muggle family members, who could cause them to have negative feelings about people who aren’t heterosexual, but again, like muggleborns, it depends on a whole lot more than just being muggle or even the time.

I appreciate the idea of Jo wanting to create a world where homophobia isn’t a big thing. but it is a bit too simplistic, and too one-note, which is why my explanation took longer. I do not take into account the lack of same-sex couples in Potter, as the books were published for children, starting in the 90s, ending in the early 2000s... even now, having LGBTQ+ characters isn’t always exactly encouraged and can be met with backlash, so back then, even if she wanted to (if she’s said anything about ever having any plans of having an LGBTQ+ character besides Dumbledore, I haven’t seen it), I wouldn’t be surprised if her editor or the publishing company shut it down; that part is pure speculation. She may have had no interest in another character, and just didn’t have the inspiration or find it relevant.

I don’t particularly dismiss Dumbledore being gay not said in the books as meaning it was an “afterthought” or a “way to be inclusive.” I accept the idea that it’s possible, but given who Dumbledore’s character was, I find it to be perfectly valid that it just didn’t come up. Had she said Harry was canonically bi the entire time, then I’d think it was an afterthought or a way to be inclusive, because apart from acknowledging a few male characters as attractive/good looking/handsome (something you can very much do with the same -sex and still be straight), we see no signs of him having any interest in the same sex, and he’s our protagonist, our eyes and ears, for 7 books, over 7 years of Harry’s life.

Other people within the LGBTQ+ world, beyond just same-sex couples (trans, nonbinary, ace/arom/etc), is an entirely different conversation that I can only give headcanons and speculation on, because to my knowledge, she’s never made any public statement about them existing, or the wizarding world’s opinion on them. I can make assumptions that I believe would make sense, but that would be another long rant. Maybe I’ll save that for another day.

#ooc #homosexuality #same sex couples #Harry Potter #JK Rowling #Wizarding World

2 notes · View notes

bethkerring · 5 years

Text

10 Tips on Writing Asexuality

It’s been a long, long twelve years since I first realized I was asexual.

I’m one of the fortunate ones that realized my lesser-known orientation without having to go through years of confusion, uncertainty, and experimentation (because while some might enjoy that, I can pretty much guarantee I wouldn’t have). I was fourteen when I first came across the term and thought it might apply to me, and shortly before I turned fifteen, I officially claimed it as my own.

A lot has changed since then. When I first came out, there was almost nothing out there for asexuals. There was the AVEN website, a few blog posts, and even fewer YouTube videos, but the word basically didn’t exist in common knowledge, even among people who identified as LGBTQ+. Any fiction that included ace characters was almost exclusively unconfirmed, and left up to fans to compile lists of evidence that a certain character was probably asexual—which was usually ignored by the majority of fans, who wanted to see the character in sexual situations, and often later brushed aside by the creators.

Now, asexuality is more and more recognized by the popular media and the general public. Visibility is still lacking, but we’re recognized by major LGBTQ+ organizations, represented (to a small extent) in Pride events, and increasingly represented as characters in TV shows, books, movies, etc. I’ve even found random strangers recognizing the asexual pride button on my purse—and I live in the Bible Belt.

And it’s a great feeling. Every time I see another ace character in popular media, I get a little burst of joy to see someone like me—at least in this one way, if not in others. I’m especially glad to see good representation, especially after years of representation that was questionable at best (Sherlock still comes to mind) and harmful at worst (does anyone remember that episode of House?). I’m also thrilled to see that non-asexual people are really interested in doing ace representation right and are reaching out to asexuals to get their take on what they want to see.

So I thought I would include my perspective on writing asexual characters, because frankly, everyone’s experience and viewpoint is a little difference, and I hope this conversation continues with as many diverse voices as possible.

I hope these tips are helpful and make you at least a little more confident about including ace characters in your own work!

1. Watch out for stereotypes, but don’t throw them out the window. This is almost certainly confusing, so let me explain: I often see people try so hard to avoid stereotypical traits in asexual characters that they forget that aces are incredibly diverse. Yes, not all asexuals are aromantic, but some are. Yes, not all asexuals hate close physical contact, but some do. Yes, not all asexuals are shy or socially awkward, but some are. Yes, not all asexuals have seventeen cats, but some do. Yes, not all asexuals are repulsed by sex, but some are. And the list goes on. You should absolutely be aware if a character trait you’ve chosen is stereotypical, but that doesn’t necessarily mean you should avoid it, especially if you have more than one asexual character. Be aware of it, but focus on writing a well-rounded, realistic character over avoiding every stereotype in the book. No matter what trait it is, if you’re writing it well, chances are good there’s an asexual out there who will empathize with it.

2. Keep intersectionality in mind. Though, as I said, I’m absolutely thrilled to see more ace characters in media, I know there’s still a desperate need for more diverse examples of asexuality, especially those that take into account how people of different races, genders, abilities, national origins, religions, and ages—among other things—experience their asexuality. A man does not experience asexuality the same as a woman. A white person does not experience asexuality the same as people of other races—I can’t list them all here, but from what I’ve seen, every racial identity comes with stereotypes and prejudices that interact with asexuality differently. Someone’s religion might affect how they view their asexuality or how they’re viewed by their religious community, and someone’s asexuality might be brushed aside if they’re “too young,” “too old,” or have a disability. Personally, I am an able-bodied American white woman, so I can’t say a lot about this specifically, but please do your research on this aspect of their experience just like you would any other. It might not be what you’re expecting.

3. Don’t make asexuality their defining trait. Unless someone is an asexual activist (and these are valid characters!), and even if they are, they’ve probably got quite a few aspects of their life that have nothing to do with their orientation. An asexual doesn’t spend all day every day thinking about the fact that they don’t experience sexual attraction. It is, after all, the lack of an experience rather than the presence of one, and is therefore less likely to draw their attention at any given moment. Contrary to some people’s belief, asexuals don’t necessarily have “oodles of free time” since they don’t spend it thinking about sex—but they do have other things that interest them. They are full human beings, just as complex as anyone of any other orientation, and as a certain lesbian character from a TV show I’m fond of once said, “My sexuality is not the most interesting thing about me.”

4. Remember that there are many ways to “humanize” a character without giving them a love interest. This is one of those topics that isn’t exclusive to stories with asexual characters, but is still relevant to them. All too often, I’ve seen characters who seem cold, inhuman, or heartless made more “human” by falling in love, as if the ability to feel romantic and/or sexual attraction is what makes them “not a machine.” This idea goes back at least a century, to Arthur Conan Doyle stating that Sherlock Holmes was “as human as a Babbage’s calculating machine, and just as likely to fall in love.”

Let me make this very clear: a character is not inhuman because they don’t feel romantic or sexual love, and a character is not especially human simply because they do feel these things. Even if your character is not asexual, please don’t make the one thing that “humanizes” them be romantic/sexual attraction—and in the case of asexual characters, please don’t try to “humanize” them by giving them a romantic interest. Yes, asexuals can be romantic, aromantic, or anything in between, but romantic asexuals are no more human than aromantics. There are so many other ways to humanize someone: strong platonic attachment, caring for animals, passion for a social cause, love for the environment, and countless other possibilities. Obviously it’s completely okay for romantic or sexual attraction to be one of these things: but please don’t make it the only one.

5. Think about how they discovered their orientation. Even if your character has known they’re asexual for 50+ years, unless your story takes place in some great fictional society where non-straight orientations are openly welcomed and accepted as normal, how they figured out their asexuality is probably going to affect them—as well as when they figured it out. I discovered my own asexuality in my early teens, but I’ve seen people who didn’t discover the term until they were senior citizens, having felt alone and out of place their entire lives with no idea why. If they discovered it recently, especially after a long time of not understanding themself, they might still be figuring out exactly how they define their own identity.

6. Consider asexuality in the context of your character’s environment. Small-scale and large-scale. Where your character grows up and what environment they live in during the story makes a huge difference on how their asexuality is expressed, and this is true whether you’re writing historical fiction (where views of and experiences in asexuality are obviously very different) or whether you’re deciding if your character’s family is supportive. There’s an enormous spectrum of variation in this, so I won’t even try to go into the details, but keep in mind that whether your character is out, what sort of prejudice they face, and how they feel about their own orientation will all be greatly affected by the world they live in and the people they know.

7. Asexuality is not an illness—but that doesn’t mean life experiences can’t affect it. Remember the House episode I mentioned? For those that never saw it, the patient-of-the-day was an apparently ace woman, married to an apparently ace man, who goes to see Dr. House. House is convinced that no human could possibly be asexual, despite another character, Wilson, mentioning research validating the orientation. In the end, House discovers that the man has a brain tumor suppressing his sex drive and the woman has been faking her orientation to stay with her husband.

This is … extremely problematic for what I hope are obvious reasons. This led to a lot of families and friends of asexuals, who had previously been supportive, suddenly worrying that their loved ones had brain tumors. Obviously, if there is a genuine reason to suspect a medical issue (such as a sudden disappearance of sexual interest when it existed before), one should consult a doctor, but this episode presented only two cases of asexuality, one of which was “just an illness” and another of which was a lie. This led viewers to the same conclusion that House himself reached: that no healthy human being could possibly be asexual.

This is a very bad example of asexual representation, but it’s also worth mentioning that there are asexuals who view their asexuality as being affected by their life experiences, a specific diagnosis, or even a chronic illness, and as long as you do research beforehand into what sorts of experiences can contribute to someone’s identity, and don’t try to “cure” that character’s asexuality as part of your story, this is okay. Ideally, include more than one ace character as a way to make it clear to your readers that experiences differ, and that all roads to finding one’s identity are valid. Sexual orientation is unlikely to change and can never be “cured”—since it’s not an illness in itself—but that doesn’t mean the environment can’t affect it.

8. Exploration and questioning is okay. I also want to emphasize that it is completely okay to have a character that is questioning their sexuality, and either later decides that they are ace or decides that they are not ace. As long as asexuality is treated as a genuine orientation and not just a “symptom”—and again, ideally, more than one ace character is included at least briefly—a character realizing that asexuality isn’t the right identity for them, or only realizing such after exploring other identities, is fine. As mentioned above, the House episode did this very wrong, but as long as you are not “disproving” the asexuality of the only two ace characters in the show—especially when it’s disproved by a guy who believes asexuality is impossible/inhuman—and you are sensitive and respectful, I think this can be done without causing offense.

9. Remember that ace views of attraction can be different than non-ace views. Much of society (at least Western society) seems to lump all attraction into one form: sexual and romantic combined. As asexuality gained more visibility, the idea of romantic and sexual attraction existing independently became more popular. On top of this, other types of attraction got more recognition: for instance, strong platonic attraction (like a non-romantic crush), sensual attraction (the desire for non-sexual physical contact), and aesthetic attraction (the attraction to the physical appearance of a person or object, but no desire for interaction). Note that this isn’t an asexual-exclusive experience, and a story definitely doesn’t need ace characters to explore these topics: many non-aces do experience these varied types of attraction, but haven’t had as much context to recognize or explore them. Asexuality, in recognizing that there are human beings with no sexual attraction, helped open the door to these ideas, but they have always existed. And even though this doesn’t necessarily relate to ace characters, I think it will go a long way to helping asexual experiences of attraction be better accepted.

10. Asexuality is a spectrum, and it’s more than okay to write all along it! I’ve been referring to the most general idea of “asexuality” in this post—probably because I fall completely in that category—but asexuality isn’t as simple as that, and the line between “ace” and “non-ace” isn’t so cut and dry. “Grey-asexuals” are a big part of the ace community, and their experience is both similar to and different from people who just identify as “asexual.” There are also demi-sexuals, who feel sexually attracted only once a strong emotional connection has been formed—and yes, these people deal with a lot of the same issues as asexuals, though of course, many parts of their experience are also unique. Keep this spectrum in mind as you’re writing your characters, even if you do end up writing someone who just identifies as “asexual.” It’s important to remember that the spectrum exists, if only because it’s a reminder that all of us, ace, non-ace, or anywhere in between, are part of the same immensely diverse gradient, instead of simply black and white.

Original post on my website.

#writing #writing tip #writing diverse characters #asexuality #ace characters

5 notes · View notes

bitchboi2000-blog · 5 years

Text

Is Asexuality LGBT (An Essay?--This is longer than I intended it to be lol)

I know I’ve never really made a post on here before, I usually enjoy looking at other peoples’ content and not contributing to much myself since I usually don’t feel I have anything to share, talent or information-wise. However, I’ve recently been seeing a lot of arguing over a certain topic, and although I’ve sort of seen it before, for some reason this theme has been heating up a lot lately and now that it’s becoming more frequently apparent, it’s been something I’ve thought about a lot more. There’s one YouTuber I enjoy the content of, and I generally agree with his views and opinions on various subjects, and when he brought this topic up in one of his videos that I only recently discovered, I found myself a little... disappointed. I still understand where he was coming from and respect why he felt the way he did, but I feel that he was also pretty uneducated on the subject and, since I know many other people seem to be as well, I thought maybe, just maybe, I could put something out there that might, hypothetically, shed some light. Just giving my own opinion, stance, and thoughts to consider for anyone on any side of the argument.

And what is this controversial topic, you may ask?

Whether or not asexuality is included in the LGBT(+) community.

Many people say they are, many people say they aren’t. I think both stances are valid, but the reasons why someone may claim one or the other is something that I find a particular issue with. To me, whether or not asexuality is in the LGBT community is sort of a grey area, it’s not so easy to say because it’s not quite so obvious. Asexuality is a spectrum, and this topic is complicated.

First, I’m going to go over why many people claim they shouldn’t be included in the community (and whether or not I agree with those claims). Then, I’ll go over why many people claim they should be part of the community (and whether or not I agree with those claims), and, finally, I’ll give my own personal opinion and stance.

To start with: Why it isn’t.

1. “The LGBT community is for people who have sexual attraction to the same sex! If you don’t have any sexual attraction, you wouldn’t belong with the LGBT!”

-- I don’t 100% agree. The LGBT community isn’t exclusive to people who feel same-sex attraction. Bisexuality exists, and they aren’t exclusively attracted to the same sex. Also! Transgender people exist, and they could be 100% heterosexual but because they’re trans, they’re still part of the LGBT community! And, therefore, the LGBT community isn’t restricted only to your sexual orientation being geared toward the same sex. So although this doesn’t debunk the claim on whether or not asexuality should be included, it’s something to consider.

2. “If you lack sexual attraction to someone, nobody’s discriminating against you. It’s not even in the same realm as being lesbian or gay.”

-- I could agree with this to an extent. The discrimination asexuals face, historically, aren’t the same as those who are gay or trans. Just like the discrimination bisexuals face isn’t the same as a homosexual. They may be similar, but they’re different. Likewise, asexuals--contrary to this popular belief--do experience discrimination. It may look different, and they may be treated differently, and sometimes it’s with less severity of homosexuality, but discrimination is discrimination. I don’t mind people saying that asexuals don’t experience the same sort of discrimination as trans and homosexual people, because that’s true! But I do have an issue with people claiming that they don’t experience discrimination because that’s not true. At least, not always. Are there asexuals who have experienced no discrimination? Absolutely. For some asexuals, the worst that’s happened to them is that people look at them in confusion, respect their identity, or perhaps make jokes about how they’re a plant (which when done in a light-hearted attitude is just an annoyance, but they’re not being treated any differently or as any less of a human being). However, there are asexuals who do. For many years, asexuality was considered to be a mental illness. That there was something “wrong” with a person because they didn’t have any sexual desires. Similar to a form of discrimination that many homosexuals face, many people try to invalidate asexuality by saying “you only feel that way as a defense mechanism after being sexually abused”. This is implying that you can’t truly be of your sexual orientation unless you were harmed in some way, and although defense mechanisms are a valid way of coping with trauma, claiming that someone is only of their sexual orientation because of their trauma is incredibly rude, invalidating, and uneducated. Heterosexuals can still be heterosexual even if they’ve been sexually abused, and homosexuals can be homosexual even if they’ve never been sexually abused. A person’s sexuality is a part of who they are, it’s not a choice or something that “happened” to them. It’s not something someone can change (you can change your behavior for your sake or someone else’s, but you can’t change who you are. It’s how closeted homosexuals can pass being in a heterosexual relationship--because their desire for emotional and/or physical survival outweighs their natural attraction to the same sex, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t homosexual). So, for asexuality to be written off as a coping mechanism due to trauma is, in a way, a form of discrimination. It’s saying that what that person feels and is experiencing isn’t real or valid, and it can be very harmful and damaging to a person in many ways. Many people do see asexuals as “broken people” or as if there was something wrong with them. Even if they don’t believe it’s something their doing as a “coping mechanism” and respect asexuality as a sexual orientation, they still think there’s something wrong with being asexual. Just like how some people can respect that homosexuality is a sexual orientation, and even believe it’s not something they can help, but still think there’s something wrong with homosexual people. Asexuals are often seen as cold, frigid, emotionless, unloveable people, and are even associated with not being human. Even though it is often said in a joking light (though not always), there’s always the questions and claims rising up of “sexuality is part of human nature, you’re going against nature’s design and natural calling”, “humans are sexual beings, so, therefore, there’s something wrong with you and you must not be human”, “are you secretly a robot or something? How can you not feel anything??”. These are all very dehumanizing, and when an asexual is faced with these questions and claims, it can very much leave a person feeling lost, or like there’s something wrong with them and they’re not “normal”. Treating someone, like there’s something wrong with them (due to their sexuality), implying that someone may not be human, suggesting that they must be cold and callous and aren’t desirable in a friendship or relationship, is all a form of discrimination that can hurt a person’s psyche, is it not? Some asexuals are sexually assaulted because the assaulter believes they can “fix” the asexual and turn them straight/homosexual/whatever. “Corrective rape” is just as much discrimination for a homosexual as it is for an asexual. The root is discrimination against the victim’s sexuality, the result is a scarring act of violence. Some asexuals, believe it or not, are not accepted by their families for their orientation. On the most minor level, they’re dismissed and treated as a “late bloomer”, on the worst level, they’re sent to a conversion camp because being asexual is “just as bad as homosexuality” simply because, in some religious beliefs, not reproducing is going against god’s plan and design for you and is therefore a sin. I’ve not yet heard of an asexual being kicked out of their house for being asexual, but that doesn’t mean all asexuals are accepted by their family and don’t experience discrimination from loved ones (which is why, again, the discrimination may look different, but it’s still there). Some people hold the belief that anyone who isn’t cisgender and heterosexual is, somehow, crazy, uneducated, irrational, and in religious contexts, a sinner or abomination. Because of this, sometimes, if someone claims to be asexual, they are automatically lumped in with these negative claims. Similar to how just being homosexual can give you a “bad” rep, in some cases, just being anything other than heterosexual can give you that same “bad rep”, and asexuality is included in that. It’s not as common, but you absolutely can be killed for being asexual. To be fair, you can be murdered for just about any reason or motive, but if you think that being asexual is taken off of the list, you’re completely wrong. Just as a cishet woman could potentially be killed by a man for rejecting his romantic/sexual advances and a cis lesbian or trans man could be murdered for prejudiced and bigotted beliefs, asexuality absolutely could be a reason for a hateful, violent person to attack another individual. It’s not the most common form of discrimination for ace people, it’s not the most known form of discrimination for ace people, ace people aren’t more popularly known for being at risk for this (though are ace people commonly known by society, anyway?), but do not think that just because someone’s asexual they are automatically unqualified to be targetted for violence. Violence can happen to anyone, for any reason, at any time. And, if you wanted to go there, asexuals can also potentially be discriminated against when people claim it’s not a real sexuality. Asexuals are often rejected by both the heterosexual community (from being very clearly not heterosexual) and rejected by the LGBT community (for being very clearly not homosexual, either). Not being seen as belonging in either community can certainly be a form of discrimination and ostracization. Not the worst form of it, but certainly a form.

3. “I don’t really have an issue with asexuality, but heteromantic asexuals are basically just heterosexual, so they don’t belong in the community at all.”

-- I understand this claim and, to a degree, respect it. There are many asexual heteromantic cisgender people who in no way identify with the LGBT community because they just don’t see themselves as “queer” in any way, so they don’t fit in. Because asexuals don’t experience sexual attraction, that’s one less thing they can bond with LGBT members over (since cishet asexuals don’t experience discrimination for their gender or who they fell in love with in fifth grade). And because the LGBT community can so often have a hypersexual air about it, many asexuals themselves don’t feel like they belong there. Some people are okay with asexuals being in the LGBT community because they’re also homo/biromantic or transgender. So for a lot of people, whether or not you belong in the LGBT community depends on whether or not you in any way fit into one of the existing acronyms and not whether or not you’re of marginalized sexuality. To a degree, I respect this. Many LGBT people don’t want their safe space to be invaded by cishet (as in both of those things simultaneously in the same person) people since those people so often have oppressed them, and though they love their cishet friends, the LGBT community just isn’t their space to be. Just like you may love your little sister but when she’s constantly barging into your bedroom it gets annoying because--she has a room of her own! And you two spend time with each other in the rest of the house! Why does she have to come into your room when you’re with your friends and you really just want to enjoy their company without your sister being involved?! And, because cishet(eromantic) asexual people still pass as being cishet, they’re often lumped in the same group and aren’t really welcomed into the community. Which, again. I understand that and kind of respect it. But, on the other hand--if cishet asexual people also feel alienated by cis heterosexual/romantic people, then it feels like they have nowhere to go--so I also understand why they turn to the LGBT community and try to find a place there. The LGBT community is known for being a place of acceptance for discriminated/oppressed sexualities and gender identities, so it’s understandable why an asexual would feel more at home among those sorts of people. Basically, my point is that I understand this view point, and I respect it. I don’t 100% agree, but I don’t really disagree, either. I’ll get more onto this in the end when I go over my own stance.

4. “The A stands for Ally!”

-- lol that’s debatable. A lot of people don’t even like to call it the LGBTQIA+ community because it becomes too many letters, and they just go by LGBT--which certainly doesn’t have an A. Even if you are being inclusive of all those little letters, whether the A actually stands for asexual or ally is debatable. Many asexuals believe the A stands for asexuality--because asexuality is an actual minority sexual orientation, meanwhile just being an ally of the LGBT community isn’t in any way actually being a part of the community. Because you just support it. But you aren’t in it. So I understand why many people claim the A is for asexuality and not for being an “ally”. Because allyship isn’t a sexuality lol when you’re an ally you’re literally saying you’re cishet, not part of the community, but you support the community. Which is really nice and awesome, but I don’t understand why you’d have a letter included in that community when you’re not... part of that community. It’s like saying “that’s great that this is a charity for starving children, but could you also include the wealthy fed people in the title? Why? Well because we’re donating to help the starving children! So we should be included in the name of this charity!! We’re a very big part of it!!” There’s absolutely nothing wrong with being a supportive ally (it’s incredibly important that we have you guys), but the community isn’t for you--so when people try to claim that the A is for “ally”, I just... I don’t think so. I don’t agree. I understand why asexuals are trying to claim the A.

5. “The A stands for Ally so closeted people can still join!”

-- I completely respect this. 100%. So many closeted people want to be proud of who they are, but for their own safety, they can’t. So claiming to be an “ally”, going to pride events because they’re an “ally”, etc. is a great way for them to still interact, still be part of the community, while keeping their safety. I absolutely don’t mind the A being included in the acronym if it’s being used as a cover identity for closeted individuals. I think it’s great that it can be used that way and fully support that. If someone wants to use the A in the acronym because they secretly are LGBT and want to be included in the community while being safely closeted, I think that’s fine. If you try to tell me that the A stands for ally because supporting the LGBT community means you’re deserving to be part of the community, and asexuals don’t belong to be part of the community because the A is for ally and not for asexuality, then I don’t agree with you. Because in that scenario you’re literally forcing yourself into a community you’re not technically a part of, while simultaneously trying to push out an actual minority sexuality.

6. “Asexuality is a choice”

-- Absolutely not. Celibacy and asexuality are two different things. If you don’t think asexuality belongs in the LGBT community because you think asexuality is a choice, you should first educate yourself on what asexuality actually is and then please restate your opinion and stance. You can be a celibate homosexual. Celibacy is a choice. Asexuality is a sexual orientation. One is something you choose despite the desire, one is a sexual orientation--something you can’t help or change even though you may want to because of how society treats you.

7. “I’m fine with agender, but not asexuality because you still have dysphoria and transition, so you’re still trans, but with asexuality you’re not changing anything. You’re not being discriminated against, nothing’s happening to you”

-- As far as the discrimination thing goes, I think you can read one of my above statements to know that I completely disagree. And as far as needing to change, that’s not accurate, either. Trying to compare a sexuality to a gender identity is comparing apples and oranges. Yes, both have an “a” to represent the lack of something, but they’re two completely different things. Your sexuality isn’t supposed to change. Like, I suppose an asexual can “change” their lifestyle by coming out, accepting who they are, and becoming more comfortable in their sexual orientation, wearing more pride colors if they felt like it, and making shitty puns--which would be no different than with a homosexual person doing those same things. But of course, those “changes” are completely different than a trans person’s changing process. They’re two entirely different things. Saying an asexual doesn’t belong in the LGBT community because they’re not “changing” and “nothing is happening to them” is completely irrelevant because we’re not talking about gender identity here, we’re talking about sexuality. This is an invalid argument.

8. “There are no asexual icons who are advocating for the LGBT community.” “Historically, asexuals aren’t contributing to the LGBT community, they haven’t fought for any of our rights, so they don’t belong in the LGBT community”.

-- I admit I don’t know too much history and every political figure to know whether or not this is true. My guess is that in all the history of the world, I’m sure there’s been at least one asexual person who’s advocated and fought for LGBT related things (maybe they didn’t have the word to describe their sexuality, but still fought for the community nonetheless). But, even if, hypothetically, there were no LGBT activists who were asexual, ever, in the history of mankind. ...Do you need to be an advocate to be part of the community? Many LGBT people are happy living their lives, grateful to those who have fought for their rights and basking in those liberations without going to protests or marches, themselves. Not every person has to go to war to enjoy living in safety. Similarly, you can still be part of the LGBT community without being an advocate, yourself. This is kind of rude for every LGBT person who’s never faced discrimination (because society is changing, and there are some--even if few--who haven’t been horribly discriminated against for their sexuality) or hasn’t actively participated in any marches, protests, or historical events. But that doesn’t mean they’re not gay. Just like there’s been many people who have fought for gay rights, trans rights, who have gone to marches and made a change, historically, who aren’t gay themselves. They did it because it was the right thing to do, because they cared, they were able to, because they were an ally. I feel this is also an invalid argument because whether someone should be part of the LGBT community, in my opinion, shouldn’t be depending on whether or not they’ve personally contributed something significant to it. But idk that’s just my opinion. I understand where this argument is coming from and what they’re trying to say, I just don’t entirely think it’s a valid argument to exclude a particular sexuality.

Now, reasons why people claim that asexuality should be part of the LGBT community.

1. “The LGBT community is a community for any minority sexual orientation or gender! And, therefore, asexuality should be included!

-- I don’t completely agree. I do feel like the LGBT community is more reserved for minority sexualities and gender identities who have been discriminated against, oppressed, and have been mistreated by society in one way or another for their identity. And although, yes, many minority sexualities do get odd looks and people may make fun of you or tease you or think you’re stupid or crazy, that’s not really legitimate discrimination (in my opinion) where you would need a “safe place” or an entire community of your own. You don’t need a support group (in my opinion). Demisexuality is a valid orientation, I’m glad there’s a word for it--since it’s a more specific term than just saying you’re heterosexual or homosexual and people getting the wrong idea when they hit you up for a one night stand. I don’t think demisexuality is oppressed and I don’t think it needs to be in the LGBT community--if you were demiheterosexual, cisgender, heteromantic, I don’t personally think you’d be part of the LGBT community just because you have a little demi in there and are ““technically”” of a “minority” “”sexuality””. Someone can be “homoflexible” as their sexuality, and it’s a valid sexuality, I’m glad there’s a specific word for it, and that’s fine. Maybe someone prefers to identify with the minority sexuality of “homoflexible” instead of claiming to be bisexual, and that’s fine. They’re still part of the LGBT community because they mostly are attracted to the same sex and thus are extremely prone to the discrimination 100% homosexual people experience. My point is, I don’t think minority sexualities are invalid, I’m glad there’s words out there that exist for them. Having specific labels, precise identifiers, particular words that exactly describe you are important to a lot of people, so having those terms and minority labels are perfectly fine with me. I have no issue with it if someone identifies as demihomosexual panromantic cis man. I now have a more precise idea of your orientation and identity, so I like that. I do have an issue with people saying that just because it’s in the minority it belongs in the LGBT community. There’s fine lines and grey areas, sure. But just because it’s “out of the usual” doesn’t mean it belongs. I say this because then people get confused and think they can any less-common sexuality or identity into the LGBT community which not only makes us sometimes look like crazy fools to the rest of the world (I’m sorry, I don’t believe in stargender), and then you get people who think they’re part of the LGBT community and want to have everything inclusive of them and revolving around them just because they’re lithosexual and loses feelings for every person they’ve been with--even though they’re heterosexual and cisgender. It’s fine that they identify as lithosexual (even though they’re also heterosexual and cisgender), but that doesn’t necessarily mean the LGBT community is for them. But just because it’s a minority sexuality or identity doesn’t mean it’s necessarily part of the LGBT community, that the LGBT community is for them, or that the LGBT community will accept them (and when they get rejected that they have every right to fight their way inside the community they were rejected from anyway). The SAGA(sexuality and gender acceptance) community is accepting of every gender and sexual orientation, so that’s the perfect place for any minority that wants a place to belong when they don’t quite fit for the LGBT community.

2. The A means “Asexuality”!

-- That’s entirely debatable. I don’t personally know who was the first one to put “A” in the LGBT+ acronym, but that person is the only one who can clarify what the A means. As far as I know, the A could mean “Ally” (meant to be used for closeted people), it could mean “Asexuality”, and neither has been confirmed or proven. Not trying to invalidate, or say asexuality is or isn’t in the LGBT community, just I don’t think this is the strongest argument.

3. “Asexuals are discriminated against and if you’re being discriminated against, you belong in the LGBT community!”

-- Again, I don’t entirely agree with that mindset. As I’ve made it clear above, I don’t think that just because you’re being discriminated against means you’re part of the LGBT community. You could be a pedophile, and there will be backlash with your predatory behavior, and that doesn’t mean you’re valid and belong to be in the LGBT community. You could really like pineapple on your pizza, and maybe your friends make fun of you or bully you for it, but just because you’re being ~”discriminated”~ against doesn’t mean you’re LGBT. You can face oppression for your religious beliefs, but that doesn’t make you LGBT.

4. “Asexuality is a minority sexuality that’s faced discrimination and they don’t really belong in the hetero community, so they feel more comfortable and safe in the LGBT community and I think we should be accepting of them, because I’ve been mistreated for my sexuality, and I don’t want to send them away.”

-- There are many LGBT people who are accepting of asexuals and think they belong in the community because many asexuals feel like they have nowhere else they really belong, identify as a minority sexual orientation, and feel more comfortable identifying as part of the LGBT community. Considering asexuality isn’t heterosexuality (and unlike demisexuality where there can be grey lines, it is very OBVIOUSLY not heterosexuality), and many asexuals do experience some form of discrimination or invalidation of who they are, many LGBT people think there’s nothing wrong in including them into the LGBT community, and many LGBT people feel that the LGBT community should be accepting of asexuality because they personally feel that asexuality fits in well enough with the LGBT community and certainly is too different from heterosexuality to be seen as anything other than “queer”. I personally don’t think this is a necessarily wrong or bad reason to support asexuality belonging in the LGBT community.

Now, here’s my opinion. And I know what you’re about to say: “But you were just spending this whole post talking about your opinion!!” Yes!! I was!! I was giving various claims and arguments on whether or not asexuality should be part of the LGBT community, and what my thoughts on those arguments were. But now I just want to fully express my stance and beliefs.

I believe, ultimately, that it depends entirely from case to case. I believe some asexuals belong in the LGBT community (and not because they’re also biromantic or trans or something else), and I believe some asexuals don’t belong in the LGBT community (and not because they’re cisgender and heteromantic).

Asexuality is a minority sexuality, but it’s far more common than people think. There have been researches on it, statistics drawn, and it’s not some random, obscure sexuality that only a hundred people “vibe” with. It’s 1% of the population, roughly, which puts them at about the same frequency as transgender people (who are also roughly 1% of the world’s population). Because of this, I don’t think asexuality is some extremely minor, incredibly niche group of people. I think that as far as minority sexualities go, asexuality is common enough, present enough, and exists frequently enough in people to be part of the LGBT community. I believe asexuality can experience discrimination due to their sexuality--and because it’s not some incredibly rare thing that only 20 people identify as, I believe this discrimination is in more valid need of a space and community than some obscure identity like placiosexuality (which is more of a preference in action, not a distinct sexuality that stands on its own--it’s a modifier to a sexuality, but not a sexuality distinctly on its own).

And, as such, I personally feel that it vibes well with the LGBT community, and I don’t personally have an issue with it being in the LGBT community. If a bisexual person experiences discrimination for being bisexual, but ultimately can still live a “straight passing” relationship and escape from their oppression, and still be considered LGBT, I think that a heteromantic asexual, who is discriminated against and oppressed for their asexuality, and struggles to be in relationships even though they’re “hetero” can also be part of the LGBT community. If an asexual person is struggling with their identity, is being discriminated against, is afraid that their partners might act out violently against them because of their sexuality (or pressure and coerce them into sexual activity that the person doesn’t want to engage in), they’ve been ostracized by their family, mistreated by their friends, all for their sexuality--I understand why they’d turn to the LGBT community, a community known for being accepted of sexualities that aren’t otherwise accepted by society, and hope to find a place where they belong in that community. And if an asexual person experienced all of those things because of their sexuality, I don’t care if they’re heteromantic and cisgender. I, personally, have no issue with considering them LGBT, because I just don’t really see asexuals as being “straight”, and if that particular asexual is already struggling so hard with trying to live a “heterosexual” life and they’re being discriminated against and it’s making them miserable, yeah. I really don’t mind if they want to consider themselves LGBT and feel more comfortable with that label and want to associate with us.

I think that if a person is asexual and aromantic, and if they want to consider themselves part of the LGBT community, I’m perfectly fine with that as well. They’re, very clearly, not hetero in any way shape or form, and so, again, I personally feel they vibe well and if they want to consider themselves LGBT I don’t have an issue with it.

If someone is heterosexual, cisgender, and aromantic... I don’t think they belong in the LGBT community. Of course, I’m open to it, but just like with other extreme minority identities, I don’t think just because you’re out of the norm you necessarily belong to the LGBT community. I, personally, don’t think cis/het aromantic people face any legitimate discriminations (aside from just being told they’re heartless--which certainly sucks, but I don’t think it’s legitimate enough to call for needing a support group or an entire community for), and I don’t personally feel that they vibe enough with the LGBT community. Of course, I might change my mind, I might be informed otherwise, but right now, that’s just my stance. There’s plenty of cisgender heterosexual people who aren’t looking for relationships, and I don’t personally know of them being discriminated against for their sexuality where they would need to be in the LGBT community. The AVEN community? Definitely. But not LGBT. Not in my opinion, unless, again, someone can give me a good and legitimate argument.

Now, if you’re asexual, heteromantic, and cisgender, and you’ve not been terribly mistreated because you’re asexual, you’ve not been discriminated against because you’re asexual, and the worst thing that’s happened to you because you’re asexual is your family says “you’re just a late bloomer” and your friends joke “lol r u a plant”... I personally don’t think you belong in the LGBT community, either. And I know it sucks to be playing the “oppression points” game, and that just because you’re oppressed doesn’t make you more/less valid, and that there’s some gay kids that don’t get oppressed--which are all valid points, but... You have to understand that the LGBT community isn’t just being oppressed, and just being a minority. Both things are important and valid, but to my understanding of it, LGBT is for people who’ve been legitimately discriminated against because of their identity. And if you haven’t been discriminated against for your asexuality (which already is even debatable whether or not asexuality is even LGBT), but in every other aspect of your life you don’t identify with the LGBT community even a little bit, it’s hard for me to see why you would really need to be accepted into the LGBT community. Not a whim, or a want, because you want to feel “cool” or whatever, but why you actually think that you need to be included in the LGBT community, why you want to get that support from other queer people, why do you think you’re queer when you already so heavily vibe with cis/het society and don’t struggle with fitting in with that society? I’m not trying to be rude, or gatekeeping (technically I can’t tell you anything--if you want to claim to be LGBT I can’t stop you from claiming that), or invalidating of your identity, I just personally don’t know why you think you would need to be part of the LGBT community. Again, maybe someone can give me a compelling argument to change my mind, but I don’t see any need for an asexual heteromantic cisgender person who’s experienced no discrimination to need a space in the LGBT community. I don’t see why there’s that emotional or psychological need.

If you’re asexual and transgender, homoromantic, biromantic, or whatever, I don’t know why you’re concerned about this. You’re already LGBT for different reasons. I’d like to know why you think asexuality needs to be considered LGBT if you’re already being included in the community. Not judging, just wondering.

“But what if asexual heteromantic cisgenders still want a community where they belong, even if they haven’t gotten enough OppReSsIoN PoINtS to BeLoNG in the LGBT community?!?!”

AVEN. AVEN is a community made by asexuals, for asexuals. And not just asexuality. As many aces know, “Asexual” is just an umbrella term. Demisexual, greysexual, and asexual people are all included in the AVEN community. You could be asexual and sex repulsed, sex neutral, sex positive, and you’ll fit in the AVEN community. You could be of any romantic orientation (hetero, bi, homo, whatever) and any gender identity and still be part of the AVEN community. You can have any sexuality and be aromantic and be part of the AVEN community. AVEN isn’t for heterosexual heteromantics, it’s for asexuals and aromantics and all of those variants.

I, personally, believe asexuality is a completely valid identity. I believe some asexuals fit in fine with the LGBT community and I consider some asexuals to be part of the LGBT community, and for those who I don’t personally think are part of the LGBT community, I don’t see why that’s a problem--because I’m not throwing you to the dogs or forcing you to find your way with heterosexual/romantics, but because there’s already another community that’s perfect for you. I understand wanting a space of your own that’s different than the rest of society, and even though I don’t think the LGBT community is always for every person, that doesn’t mean there’s no alternatives. I think the AVEN community is a perfect place for asexuals and aromantics of all types--it overlaps with the LGBT community because many asexuals are also homoromantic or trans, but it’s not the same as a completely cishet community like the rest of society--so even if you do lean on the more cishet side of asexuality or aromanticism, you still absolutely 100% belong in the AVEN community without any discussion. Just like the SAGA community is perfect for LGBT+ people who want to be even more inclusive of everything, or merely want a different acronym, that’s fine.

And, also, here’s the thing. A lot of asexuals, pardon my pun, don’t give a fuck. I’ve known heteromantic cisgender asexuals who don’t identify with the LGBT or AVEN community and don’t want to be a part of it. I think that’s fine. Hell, there’s plenty of asexuals who may already be a part of the LGBT community who don’t care if asexuality is included in the acronym or not because whether or not asexuality is included--even though they’re asexual themselves--doesn’t really matter to them. I’ve known plenty of LGBT people who aren’t aro/ace in any way who are 100% fine with asexuals being included and are completely against this whole discourse to begin with. I’ve known plenty of people who are ace who don’t care if they’re LGBT or not, or even prefer not to be considered LGBT, because they have the AVEN community and feel that’s more where they fit in and belong anyway.

I just don’t think people really care that much. If you want to consider yourself LGBT, that’s fine. I don’t think anyone’s going to stop you. For some of the people who might argue that you don’t belong, whatever, it doesn’t really matter. Some people are sensitive over LGBT issues and feel strongly over what they think should or shouldn’t be included, and I think that’s perfectly fine. If you feel like it does matter that some people don’t think you’re LGBT, then you have AVEN, so it’s not like you’re alone and have nowhere to go. I just don’t think this is as big of an issue as most people are trying to make it out to be.

Also, just so we’re clear, I’m asexual, myself. I’m also biromantic and trans. I’m not perfect, I don’t know everything, but because I’m asexual and already part of the LGBT community, I’ve got a pretty good idea of what the LGBT and AVEN communities are like, and since I am part of both, I feel like I have more thoughts and insight on it than, say, a heterosexual/heteromantic trans guy who has limited knowledge of what the “asexuality experience” even is like. I think there’s a lot of grey areas, a lot of thin lines, and I personally don’t feel it’s an extremely black and white issue. For some people it is, and I don’t personally care when someone feels strongly one way or another. I personally think whether an asexual person belongs in the LGBT community or not depends on a case-by-case scenario, and it’s up for discussion. I’m okay with asexuality being LGBT, I’m okay with it not being LGBT. Since the AVEN community is already a thing that exists, I don’t see why it’s such a huge deal whether you fit in with the LGBT community or not solely for the fact that you’re asexual and nothing else. I do get bothered when people say “you can’t be LGBT because asexuals don’t get discriminated against” and I also have an issue with saying “LGBT should be supportive and accepting of everyone!” as stated above. Which is why I can’t say it’s a black and white, yes or no thing. I understand both sides, both sides of this argument make good points that I can respect to a degree and can even agree with sometimes. Which is why I personally think...

Is asexuality LGBT? I think it just depends on the person.

#asexuality #ace #discourse #lgbt #lgbtcommunity #aven #avencommunity

1 note · View note

enberlight · 6 years

Text

I am a Chaos Kitchen

Though it's probably a little obvious, I'm going to indulge in a periodic reminder that I am quite queer. (Feel free to send an ask for clarifications, or a DM for a convo. Anon ask is on for friendly inquiries.)

The TLDR, though, is that I'm panromantic, asexual, and nonbinary. I present femme but that's rather incidental, and I'm more or less agender but hella tomboyish. She or they pronouns are fine, I'm set in my ways and don't have a huge preference unless I'm feeling dysphoric.

I didn't always know I wasn't cishet. I knew I didn't experience attraction like other girls. Or. Well, ANYTHING like girls. I was always more one of the boys. But I was raised sheltered and religious, and didn't know being anything other than What Was Acceptable was possible. And it was incredibly confusing to find girls attractive, but not want to be physical with anyone. For a while, I worried religion had made me kinda homophobic.

Figuring out where I am on the spectrum was a doozy and came late in life. I'm happier for it. Knowing myself has been enough, and being Out with my friends... though it isn't always enough, since I can't be out with all of my family, as they will fear for my mortal soul, but then "forgive" me because, being ace and married, I'm not going to be acting on attraction to girls. Great, huh?

Anyway, I suck at brevity. Asks are open for clarifications or if any of y'all need an ear for your own questions on your discoveries.

And know that wherever you are on the spectrum, be it romantic, sexual, or gender, YOU ARE VALID. YOU BELONG. And I support you. Whether you can live openly or not. Whether you've found your label or not. Whether you're looking for one or not.

People will try to tell you how to do you. And no two will agree on how that should be. Don't please them. Please yourself and be you however you can, even if it's in little moments where judging eyes don't watch.

#i am a chaos kitchen #pan enber #ace enber #enby enber #enber life

4 notes · View notes

hiskidsarerunning · 4 years

Text

Pretty simple. I’ve been thinking about this issue for a while. In my first hearing of all this I became frustrated because, from my experience, aggression towards the aggressor doesn’t normally yield successful results (in response to the violence occurring throughout the protests). I thought so because I’ve been fighting control for a long time and I’ve exhausted my methods and have hardly begun to yield successful results through it. I want BLM to succeed. I spoke out strongly against my lil powerhouse-of-a-oppressor until my face turned blue and, after much wear and tear, I just ended up having a mental breakdown instead. So I wondered, how would this do the trick in teaching the oppressors how to treat the oppressed? The way we treat others teaches others how to treat us—if they have compassion/empathy. But hang on—I talked to my friends and remembered that it’s not about what’s happening but, rather, why it’s happening and it’s incredibly important not to lose sight of this. I also see it as being monumentally important to delve into the meaning of why it’s happening. In order to do so, however, it needs to be a philosophical discussion. It needs to be a discussion with the very people involved, of course. And it needs to be a discussion regarding our mental health and our use of power. I know this notion isn’t exactly profound—this idea’s been circulating forever with very little breakthrough. What I’m saying isn’t exactly news. This very government was initially founded on the idea that no branch should have access to a high percentage of power. The same goes for the people under the control of that government. Since those people are not performing their duties properly/ethically, it is our duty as a larger crowd, with more power by number, to take this power back. It is also monumentally important for us to understand every feeling coming through this process, assessing what those feelings mean, and then moving forward together in acknowledgement of those feelings.

First I’ll begin with a story. For the past year I lived in an apartment downtown. I didn’t know two out of the four roommates before I moved in. I didn’t know that the next entire year would be absolute chaos and anguish to the point where I spent most of my time away from my house so I wouldn’t have to deal with it. C (I won’t reveal her actual name) was a problematic roommate and over the course of the year I experienced abuse of power in a new and extensive way. She locked the ac/heating system so we couldn’t access it, would send aggressive messages, would frequently take things away from our use (took all her dishes away), would behave disrespectfully to us as we would enter/leave the house (scowl/make rude comments), tried to charge us for things we didn’t buy, and kept most of our security deposit. At some point towards the end of our contract/rental agreement, my roommate decided to apply for a position as a sheriff. All of us were mortified. Thankfully, the sheriff’s department decided to check in with all of us first through interviews/questioning to see if she was, what I assumed to be, stable enough for the position. There were a lot of extensive questions regarding whether we would trust her with our life, how she treated power, if she could delegate or resolve problems efficiently, etc. We finally thought we would receive justice because of the way things had played out and the fact that we were now being asked about it. All of us answered honestly. The sheriff’s department thanked us for our honest responses. To our surprise, she started training a week later. That’s when I realized that our statement was probably effective in conveying how much power she had over us and whether she could use it—not how she used it/whether she used it correctly. I feel absolutely infuriated that something like this is able to happen right in front us. Ladies and gentlemen: this is your so-called justice system. Not exactly just. Powerful, yes, but not just.

This position is given to those who have a sense of power/have control over others. My position/responsibility is also given to those who have a sense of control or power over others. It’s very possible to abuse my position—I can teach people what to think and I can tell people what to do with it. I can technically abuse my power and brainwash hundreds upon hundreds of generations on what to think instead of how to think. I could indoctrinate my own agenda very easily. I could move people around, punish them, and remove them from the premises and I can even do that because I have enough rage and frustration, due to past experiences, to back it up. I take this into consideration every single day I’m in my field, and frankly, I’m terrified. I have high anxiety and frequently feel like I’m going to break down due to the pressure of it every day. I’m surprised I keep it together but this doesn’t come without recognition and effort. If our law enforcement doesn’t go carry the same weight or hold the same sense of responsibility, then they aren’t eligible to hold their position. It is important that as a teacher, I use my position of power and influence not to take away but to give. It’s my civic duty to give a voice to people. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve had friends voice to me that they feel like their voice doesn’t matter/why should people care what they think? It absolutely breaks my heart to hear that. It breaks my heart to know that people think that their voices or opinions have little to no influence or importance on this society—in sharing their triumphs/happiness as well as their sadness. Even on a platform such as this, for entertainment and connection, you see through this BLM movement just how much your voice matters. It doesn’t only matter that you raise awareness to the cause—your individual experience in this matter matters so much. The movement isn’t about facts and numbers (though they’re responsible for giving it more validity for naysayers) but rather a very old thing that we frequently dismiss as being unimportant: feelings. Feelings are what make us human and it’s when we feel like they’re not listened to/unimportant that we start feeling a little less human.

The concept of “control” isn’t foreign. I grew up with people who fled from control in their homelands and sought refuge in this country. The way that it works is pretty simple: someone will use anything that benefits them to try to get one over you. Racism, ageism, religious affiliation, ableism, sexism, wealth…it’s all the same (power) but the name/excuse has changed. Those who are insecure about their own position will attempt to gain control through another source that guarantees power/supposedly cannot be challenged. Control isn’t logical (which, unfortunately, means that the intended audience will have little to no interest in reading this), it’s about having the upper hand and keeping you in your place. This will be done with various threats, commands, punishments, arguments, instilling confusion, etc. I know from having been dealt this and from having dealt this out myself. Takes a moment to recognize and you know when you’re doing it. You won’t feel better because the person in front of you won’t (again, if you have empathy) or people around you will tell you. Is someone giving you ultimatums? Control. Did someone physically threaten you? Control. Is someone playing games with you? Control. Commands? Control. I’m gonna take a slice out of this conversation to bring you into an even more nuanced form of control: ambiguity. We don’t have all the answers to life’s questions, of course, but if people make you feel like you need to question your own mentality and you actually do and then the results you yield from this new mentality are problematic…Yeeeeahhh. That’s control too. Leaving people to doubt themselves is also a mental tactic in gaining control. Not all control comes in obvious forms. Again perhaps this was all astonishingly obvious and if it was, good! We’re on the same page for sure. Not all control is bad. Control is necessary, to a degree. It’s necessary in maintaining peace and order but it’s most effectively established through respect. You find a way to equally respect everyone and boom—you’ve got the honest-earned control and order that you seek. The end of this essay will come to a conclusion/resolve but the matter of the fact is that the world will not so easily come to the same.

Look—I know that it takes a couple steps backwards and a lot of dark memories to acknowledge our own faults. I know that I used to be stubborn (not all stubbornness is bad though) and problematic because I wanted control over what I felt was out of my control. That’s why we seek to gain control and, sometimes, that’s why we do it in such horrendous ways. Sometimes we don’t realize we are because our own friends and entire systems that surround us make it out like it’s okay. Sometimes they do it because they’re scared they’ll lose something if they don’t. Wham. That’s privilege (affluence/support) and entitlement (the green light to continue on with what we’re doing) for you. A small scale and more personal example would be when we talk badly about someone else and have our friends nod to us because they “deserve it” and are “mean”. People do that for us because they’re good/validate us to make us feel better…not because we’re off the hook. Them doing so doesn’t permit us to turn off our internal commentary/release us from responsibility or blow off that from others who don’t validate us. That’s why, personally, I like to listen to both perspectives—not only the ones that validate me. If I sought out or only listened to views that encouraged my own, then I just wouldn’t understand or know how to deal with a world very different from my own. Then, when faced with that world, I would lash out like a hostile and fearful animal. Been there, done that. When you enter that world, you substitute familiarity with control in order to recreate your comfort. That’s how we got here. Some people were validated, repeatedly, until they no longer were and when they weren’t they became scared/more violent. Me writing “they” makes it sound like it’s someone else. It could be you. I encourage you to take a look around and recognize the patterns of affirmation around yourself. For starters—if you generally feel like you can do most things you want/have a problem with people who tell you that you can’t or even people who make you feel like you can’t, then you’re there. Being there means it’s time to tune into the critics—inner and outer.

0 notes

vixianna · 7 years

Text

But Where’s the Legislation?!

Is it just me, or are other PoC uncomfortable with the white discoursers obsession with legislation as the One True Form of Systematic Oppression? Not only is that not true, but expecting legislation in a 21st century western country to specifically mention a group completely misunderstands how oppression actually works.

Black people are still oppressed in America, and it’s not because there is specific legislation mentioning us to keep us from getting houses or marrying. That’s not what oppression looks like in America. (For the most part. Not even the bathroom bills that target transness specifically mention trans people.)

What you should look for in legislation, when you’re looking at legislation, is disproportionate impact. You are looking to see if how the law is crafted, regardless of if it was the crafter’s intent, disproportionately impacts one group over another.

The reason for marriage equality isn’t because it specifically targeted LGBT+ folks, but because it disproportionately affected(basically entirely affected) the community. The reason the voter ID laws are getting struck down right now isn’t because it specifically mentions PoCs, but because it disproportionately affects us.

And this is a specifically white problem and outlook. It’s the same as when white racists scream about how “Jim Crow is over and there’s no segregation and there’s no oppression now!” It’s the same with the white liberal obsession with legal rights, like marriage equality, meaning that LGBT+ oppression is over. It’s the same when exclusionists and inclusionists center their whole goddamn arguments about whether this or that legislation actually does fucking whatever to ace people. (Show me the country where it’s ILLEGAL to be ace?????!)

That’s a damn smoke screen. Oppression, systematic oppression, isn’t based around explicit marginalization from society. Marginalization in this case being the society in question is trying to force the group out of society itself. To be “marginalized” here isn’t the same as what most people in the discourse use the word to mean. Being kicked out of your home, denied housing, fired from your job, ect. are forms of marginalization. They seek not to exploit members of the class, but drive them from society itself.

The most basic forms of oppression involve economic exploitation. So, you’ll see members of this class concentrated in positions that allow their labor to be extracted from them without fair(or with no) compensation. This is why, one of the reasons why, LGBT+ people are disproportionately poor. (The same with PoC. There’s a longer, semi-related post, about how race was created and maintained to craft a social class of proles to be economically exploited for the norm’d classes benefit.)

There are other forms of (systematic) oppression of course, but marginalization is the most severe form of physical material oppression. When Marginalization takes place, the society has “decided” this crafted class is so “abhorrent” they aren’t even worth economically exploiting. (Think of the genocides of indigenous people’s around the world.)

Therefore, it’s possible, and in fact entirely probable that systematic oppression is taking place without Marginalization.(the final form of Marginalization is attempted or completed genocide btw.) By the time legislation comes into play that is specifically crafted to curtail the rights, movement, freedom, ect of a crafted class, you are in the beginning stages of Marginalization.

Most oppression these days(ableism is an exception), isn’t in a Marginalization stage. It’s in less extreme stages of oppression(this includes against PoC, including fellow black people.)

That being the case, how can we conclude systematic oppression is taking place before we get to the extremes of Marginalization?

I mentioned Economic Exploitation, and considering we’re living in a Capitalist fun house of death and suffering, that’s a good place to start. There’s also Systematic Violence. I consider all forms of oppression systematic violence, but in this cause I mean physical(and emotional) violence and abuse. Increased deaths, sexual assault, physical assaults, arson, defacing of property, ect. You’re looking at people burning down or bombing religious centers(or the attack on the LGBT center that happened recently). This will happen at the individual and larger levels of an identified group. So, disproportionately violent interactions accruing to a certain group is an example of systematic oppression.

For systematic oppression absent Marginalization, we would expect to see Economic Exploitation and Systematic Violence.

So discoursers, on both sides, should be asking:

- Are aces disproportionately targeted for physical violence? - Are aces disproportionately poor? - Are aces disproportionately homeless? - Are aces exposed to increased violence against their property?(i.e. someone torching your home for being ace)

Ect.

Another form of systematic oppression is “powerlessness” and this comes from the group in question being forced away from positions of power in society. This is open LGBT+ people being removed from office or not voted for. This is, in an internalized way, members of the group thinking they will never end their own oppression(I’ve seen discourers say this, all of them exclusionists, but this is a common sentiment among the oppressed). Radical liberation thinking involves the idea you can accrue power and dismantle the system oppressing you, and one of the more insidious ways that oppression works to keep the oppressed buying into the system itself is forcing them to believe their oppression is inevitable and unchangeable.

One of the biggest results of “powerlessness” on a personal level is psychological disorder. Feeling you have no control over your life or power to protect yourself/do things, causes psychological distress. For groups affected by oppression which takes the form of powerlessness(and powerlessness is a psychological campaign taken up by the norm’d group in power), you’d expect to see increased mental illness. You also expect feelings of brokenness, worthlessness, self-esteem problems, comparing themselves to the norm and hating that they deviate, ect.

So discoursers on both sides should be asking:

- Do aces experience higher than average rates of depression? - Do aces experience higher than average rates of anxiety? - Are they more likely to be suicidal or self harm? - Is this psychological distress used to signal that they are ‘unfit’ or inherently ‘sick’? - Are aces disproportionately barred from positions of power in society?

As a final semi-related note, there is a difference between visibility, hypervisibility, and invisibility, that isn’t really talked about in discourse. Neither hypervisibility or invisibility is good or a privilege. Black people are hypervisible(and invisible), trans people(especially trans women) are hypervisible. NDN people’s and Asian peoples and Ace people are invisible. People who are hypervisible often see invisibility as a gift or proof of lack of oppression. It’s not. To be invisible is to be rendered not just unseen, but silenced. Your pain, suffering, oppression isn’t just ignored, it is denied. Both the “model minority” myth for Asians and “all NDNs are extinct” myth exist to deny, ignore, and (at the most extreme) silence the experiences and oppression of these two groups. Hypervisibility requires being surveilled but not seen. It means being viewed as an object, being fetishized, being treated as rhetorical device instead of human. It means being viewed as a threat, as an walking stereotype and example of a group instead of a person. It is depersonalization through means of obliterating personal identity.

That ace people are “unknown” isn’t invisibility on its own, however, enforcement of invisibility requires certain things. It requires the denial of examples of systematic ill-treatment. It requires the silencing of attempts of the group to organize, to create language to describe their own experiences, to accept their experiences as having happened or valid examples of prejudice against them. To enforce invisibility is ultimately about silencing. So examples of invisibility will mostly be focused around attempts to deny the reality of or redefine the reality of the groups in question. Truscum rhetoric is based around enforced invisibility as an example.

Proving that aces aren’t hypervisible isn’t proof on its own as a lack of oppression(as that’s not what oppression is/means). A lot of groups who are hypervisible define their experiences as the real oppression. And the same can be said of invisible groups. Every ace who has ever typed “well, at least people know what being gay is!” is mistaking hypervisibility for visibility.(visibility here being the state of being seen, acknowledged, understood, and listened to, the default state of the norm.) Most oppressed groups experience both forms of social oppression, but some experience only one or the other. (NBs for example suffer from being invisible, not hypervisible, and gay and lesbian people are for the most part rendered hypervisible not invisible.) But the fact one group is hypervisible and another is invisible does not mean that either group isn’t experiencing oppression.

You need to look at actual stats about the group in question.

This is aimed at everyone in the discourse, please please stop centering Systematic Oppression around legislation and legal rights. That’s not the only way oppression takes places. That’s not even the most common way oppression takes places in 21st century western countries. Branch out and actually talk about oppression and oppression dynamics rationally. Study the oppression of various groups outside of the LGBT+ family if you have to! The (basic) Dynamics of Oppression don’t change, just the target.

#ace discourse #racism #oppression dynamics

171 notes · View notes

devildove-blog · 7 years

Text

Twelve Wizard Paths Outside of The Nine Worlds (Poem)

youtube

I'm a wizard, baby, meaning a very powerful magickian. I'm a jack of many trades, so this poem details what and how. Here I'll write about a few magickian's trades that apply to my position. After nearly two decades learning magick I'd better know a lot by now. Gaining the magickal power to claim this title takes time to reach in transition.

On my path were many adventures to have and lessons to learn. From reading books to meeting others and exploring the occult therein I figured it out for myself and in time the title of Wizard did earn. Years of learning religious teachings helped me understand being otherkin. Since I was a young boy defying my upbringing for magickal power I did yearn.

The power I have is a result of many factors I don't need to explain. But putting in time and energy to my craft for a long time played a key role. I have thick skin so I don't mind if you view my pride here with disdain. Yet the poetry's here to explain my path not to brag or to try to save your soul. The 12 paths of Wizardry explained here are more obscure to people mundane.

I'm a yogi, baby, and this is some kind of ancient Pagan stuff. This is a time honoured tradition taking more time to apply than to learn. This path requires much patience, time and energy to master well enough. Years of chakras, mantras, mudras, meditation and more will in time power earn. In time weakness fades and strength is gained, and a wise Yogi hides being tough.

Learning from a Koga ninja this Kuji Kiri psychic yoga is how my path will start. Spending years meditating with these mudras, in time I grow strong. Yoga has many uses, and magickal and psychic power gained is just one part. Ignore the doubters and mockers calling my religion fantasy who string you along. Muggles can foolishly assume it all comes from cartoons like Naruto's ninja art.

I can do more than I'll say here; let it an enigma be. Not everything I experience happens while I'm in my body, you see? This transcendentalist religious belief in time proves itself a rational reality. Muggles often just assume others foreign sounding religious beliefs are fantasy. Letting the muggles think it's not real is often a wise strategy.

I'm healer, baby, and more advanced than many. I can fix medical problems other healers and sometimes even doctors can't fix. Hold my hand, feel the energy, and let me free you from any suffering you have with real healing magick, not illusionary tricks. Unlike con artists making money with tricks healing has never earned me a penny.

Empath healing magick described next may be misunderstood too. Speak of your heart's pain, and let me feel an intense amount. I'll cover my eyes to hide my tears, and I could do well to hide that I'm paying a price of pain on your account. If you felt guilty about hurting me you'd never let me heal you, would you?

Now words of wisdom I can speak guiding you on a path new that the energy of your pain gives me the inspiration to share. Now your pain is forever less or gone, because I paid a price of pain for you. The price empath healers pay is much less than the great suffering it can spare. Once this price is paid, there's no more pain for either of us to go through.

I'm a magus, baby, part priest and part mage. I don't preach to the masses; I'd rather use magick to help others. Here we go and here we go again as my pen sets the stage. I'm rollin' with muggles here I for some reason call sisters and brothers. I'm using my magick for some cause here, as life's book turns a new page.

You can call me The Fool, and I can wear many a mask. I live to serve, and my joy is to create joy for others, you see? The deities I work with can help me with many a magickal task. Being a magus is also the path of self, and there's much power in just me. For what reason do some deities help me, but not most humans who ask?

Magi is plural for Magus, and implications of royalty are here. American citizenship requires denouncing royal ranks. Yet the Magus's path is a religious construct, so have no fear. I ain't here to rule and reign. I just want to earn some thanks. With teamwork muggles can help me fix problems, and happy endings are near.

I'm a necromancer, baby, so don't tell 'em what's true. Don't stab me in the back by being seen publicly expressing to me your love and gratitude for how I used magick to help you. People value my discretion, so don't prove to Fools my power's validity. I'm happy to meet a fan, but I don't desire the public credit that seems due.

In a necromancer's trade being misunderstood is often how it goes. If I show up after sunset in a graveyard I'll bring my tools. Be cool, man. All I got here is a stick of incense, a bloodstone and a rose. Signs and wonders performed here are kept hidden from the Fools. If you hear the dead hiss or moan as I wake them, stay on your toes.

Muggles, necromancers and the dead all are not very forgiving when some Fool sacrifices an animal in a graveyard. That newb shit pisses off the dead even more than the living. Those Fools piss off necromancers too, making our work hard. I'm there only once to offer any dead willing the contracts I'm giving.

I'm a warlock, baby, an ancient term misunderstood but real. I'll use my power for a good cause and call it doing the thing. The power of war is implied in this word, and I'm the real deal. Let me be occult as I'm guided under a Red Dragon's wing. Tattooed on my back of my left hand is an modified AGLA hexagram seal.

Separation of church and state is a Masonic ideal as is the freedom of religion allowing warlocks to operate. Yet in the occult world there's much hidden in this religious ordeal. As time goes on interpretation of these ideals are open to debate. These balances lacking harmony result in Nobody caring how minorities feel.

To work well with others a warlock needs harmony found working on common ground. The warlock's path has traps, education, judgment and more. If warlock means deceiver does this even mean as it may sound? Who would ever suspect deception to be a humble protector's moral chore? Whether good or evil, eventually every warlock's karma comes back around.

I'm a creator, baby, and like the Ace of Wands I've got the power of fire. Watch me burn bridges faster than you may know with this poem like a pro. My divine, holy, infernal, celestial and gothic flames make creation transpire. I move these flames through 5 primary elements and through more than you know. Fools take a stranger's word unwisely, but fans of my work learn I'm no liar.

When I posted my non-hermetic psychopian elemental system theology online I clearly cited Plato as the source inspiring what I'm parroting thereof. When I don't fit into other mages' labels so called experts pop up to whine. Baby I have access to elements most mages don't, and many aren't even aware of. When it seems wise to do so from time to time I share created power of mine.

Be cool, man, and let the doubters and mockers doubt and mock all they want. Muggles do it most, but it's all arbitrary until they create danger and fear. Interpret my pride on these wizard paths as you will as my talents I flaunt. If you think I'm earning respect by bragging you don't see what's happening here. It's easy to misunderstand the reason behind my rhyme and what I really want.

I'm an occultist, baby, and I study things hidden. The occult hides the magickal, religious, esoteric and things of earthly power. Only so much is found in books, and Fools don't understand the forbidden. I have a couple cards to play, still surprising many by never facing The Tower. Fools rush in where wise men never go for reasons they don't know, no kiddin'.

I've got a weird way of speaking here understood clearly by a few. I'm not the first occultist to be intentionally obscure to most of you. I've got that occult fame in secret circles for better or worse. Who knew? If you're a fan of my work don't ruin the show explaining this path I go through. Don't judge a book by its cover; in time an occultist's work is paid karma due.

I'm The Fool, The Magus, The Devil and even the Hierophant from time to time. The Magus card comes from the THOTH deck, used by me for reasons unsuspected. If I call myself The Devil would you just assume I live an evil life of crime? The Devil is Rider Waite though, so my chains are often with gratitude accepted. I deal these tarot cards as the lesson of my occult strengths in this rhyme.

I'm a Dog of Reason, baby, so named in the memory of harmony true. We've got memes and shit, and things we do to build a New World. From chaos comes Order, a lesson taught and learned in time and time again too. The occult can be a dangerous thing, yet we've no banner to be unfurled. These wizard-dawgs work for one love for humanity to do the thing we do.

This ain't no criminal organization or some kinda terror shit. This is one of many parts of my greater dreams and ambitions. Membership is by invitation only, so if you're motivated prove it. We ain't thelemites, baby, and with great power comes some terms and conditions. Some want more time to work, and others want more time to Fool around a bit.

I'll share some magick and theology online from time to time. The gospel of figure it out for yourself is dogma as my theology already shew. Dogs of Reason have two commandments in this religion, besides avoiding crime. Seemingly a joke if unexplained, yet truth is hidden in plain site to you. Is the illusion of a joke as real dogma even dispelled to most with this rhyme?

I'm a cyber-mage, baby, like these chaos mages in a way. I've had training and practice on this path I've been on since 2003 when I joined the TIAMAT Cyber-Magick News-list back in the day. I've spent years evolving my craft, and now have things to share for all to see. My joy is to bring you joy so follow me and I'll lead the way.

My cyber-magick is all safe and fun to use, and there's nothing to be afraid of. Free Magick Enterprises gives two projects of cyber-magick. Let my star evolve your heart chakra, and experience new love. Take the red pill, and this devil can even remove your unwanted chains so tragic. No money will be accepted, so forget about the price tag from this devil dove.

Here come the doubters and mockers; Thinly veiled saying: "I'm better than you." I don't have time to be lectured by these Fools that Cyber-magick isn't real. Participate or don't, but Bhakti Yogi say the proof is in the pudding if you do. We did lots of experiments and testing with group input in this TIAMAT deal. I learned a lot and had years of practice to develop cyber-magick that's new.

I'm an alchemist, baby, and I got the mad transformation skills for the physical and spiritual nature of substances, souls and magick too. Sure, man, let the weaker mages brag about the power to destroy and their kills. Alchemy's sacred transformation art is beyond what they know how to do. Like Yoga, this power's about time and effort on this path not cheap thrills.

I'm on a quest to not just learn new magick, but to make it evolve. I'll purify forbidden black magicks citing the great work of the ages as my cause to create that which before did not exist and otherwise unending problems solve. Alchemy's art of creation may come with a price, so beware of that because. To purify the corrupt may corrupt the pure, but balance a price paid to absolve.

With Alchemy I can create joy and harmony, and I like to work for free. Alchemists of old claimed they might turn lead to gold as part of their plan so a King would protect their right to practice and pay their research's fee instead of explaining occult arts involved that matter not to the common man. This misunderstood art involves more and includes transformation spiritually.

I'm left hand path, baby, and yes it's really true. Different people, mostly mages, find different meanings therein. The left hand path most simply put means just to be taboo. What hand is my tattoo on then? Baby, that's secretly a Talisman. Let's turn back the clock of time to understand meanings old and new.

This term comes from India if you'll study history that far. Originally this insult started to describe Tantric Yoga when first created. The dark ages belief explaining its meaning that left handed people are morally and intellectually weaker than the right has since become outdated. The more things change the more they stay the same until someone raises the bar.

In modern times the left hand insult resurfaces metaphorically. Now embraced by many eager to be shunned by society the left hand path evolves into its own mentality. From a religious reference to basic views on morality the devil is implied on this path either literal or symbolically.

I'm a trickster, baby, and that's an occult magick path. I'll teach you lessons mostly harmless so don't take them personally. If I see chaos I may create order; see my results to do the math. I'm an educational experience; I guess I'm like this inherently. Mistake my kindness for weakness and will you get forgiveness or wrath?

I was born this way, and I'm not going through a phase as others are. When I started calling myself The Fool, that would have been your first clue. I've got metaphors like dark disguises and masks that take me far. I live to serve, and there's a method to the madness; it's true. Pride and humility working together in harmony help trickery raise the bar.

In the occult only so much is learned online or in a book. As an occultist trickster this rule applies to me the same. I'll capture the essence of my story in the poems for those who look. Here lies the story of my path as a Wizard and why this title I claim. These 12 titles of magickal paths explain why the 13th title of Wizard I took.

I'm a Wizard, Baby, just like I said before. I'm a wordsmith here sharing this path with you. As the tale comes to the end of this rhyme's chore the tip of the iceberg has been revealed to view. Muggles may take interest in this poem, or was it just a bore?

I guess doubters gonna doubt and mockers gonna mock. In the end it's always what I do and not what I say that shows my true strength. If you've walked the paths I walk you may better understand that of which I talk. I've got dreams and goals hopefully soon reached at arm's length. In Chinese Astrology not surprisingly I'm born in the year of the cock.

My story doesn't end with this poem, and my life goes on still. There's still more adventures to have, power to gain and knowledge to learn. There's still people to meet, places to go and things to do as I wilt and will. This poem describes the path, but is not in itself how a Wizard's respect I gain. If you wanted to understand my magickal path, this poem shall your wish fulfill

#poem #poetry #ftf #find the fool #occult #occultist #the magus #the fool #magic #magick

4 notes · View notes

maxwellyjordan · 4 years

Text

Wednesday round-up

Yesterday the court issued two opinions, whittling its remaining cases down to eight. In Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, the court held 5-4 that Montana’s exclusion of religious schools from a state-funded scholarship program for private schools violates the First Amendment. Amy Howe analyzes the opinion for this blog, in a post that first appeared at Howe on the Court. Mariam Marshedi has an analysis at Subscript Law. At NPR, Nina Totenberg and Brian Naylor report that “[t]he court’s decision is the latest in a series of recent rulings that have lowered the traditional wall separating church and state by requiring government entities to treat religious and nonreligious institutions more equally, even when that means sending public money to religious institutions.” At Fox News, Ronn Blitzer and others report that Chief Justice John “Roberts once again served as the swing vote in a 5-4 decision[; t]his time, he joined his fellow justices in the conservative wing of the court.” Mark Walsh reports at Education Week that “[t]he chief justice’s opinion appeared to cast doubt on provisions in as many as 30 state constitutions that bar aid to religious schools.” Additional coverage comes from Kevin Daley at The Washington Free Beacon.

At the Constitutional Law Prof Blog, Ruthann Robson writes that “the overall impression of Espinoza is a fragmented Court, despite the carefully crafted majority opinion.” John McCormack at National Review calls the case “an important victory for school-choice programs” that “has implications beyond school-choice scholarships.” At Slate, Leah Litman observes that the decision effects “a wild change from where the First Amendment was just a few decades ago.” The editorial board of The Wall Street Journal (subscription required) writes that, “[w]hatever his jurisprudential faults, Chief Justice John Roberts often sides with the angels in disputes over religious liberty.” [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among counsel on an amicus brief in support of the respondents in this case.]

In yesterday’s second decided case, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office v. Booking.com, the court held 8-1 that adding “.com” to a generic term can create a protectable trademark. Jessica Litman analyzes the opinion for this blog.

At Stanford Law School’s Legal Aggregate blog, Bernadette Meyler explains why the decision earlier this term in Ramos v. Louisiana, which “required the Court to overrule an earlier case,” “suggests that there may be future debates about the precedential status of Roberts’ own opinion in” June Medical Services v. Russo, in which the court struck down a Louisiana law requiring physicians who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a local hospital. At the Human Rights at Home Blog, Aziza Ahmed cautions that “we cannot rely on the principles of law to preserve abortion access with Conservative justices in the majority.” In an op-ed for The New York Times, Mary Ziegler observes that “this Supreme Court still seems quite willing (and even likely) to get rid of abortion rights if approached in the right way[; t]he question is whether abortion foes are up to the task.”

At Bloomberg Law, Lydia Wheeler reports that, “[i]n striking down a provision of the Dodd-Frank Act that protected the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau from being fired and leaving the agency intact, Roberts signaled Monday that he may do something similar with the Affordable Care Act—toss out its mandate to buy insurance without throwing out the entire law, health lawyers say.” Also at Bloomberg Law, Cheryl Bolen and others report that, according to legal scholars, Monday’s decision in Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau “opens the door to future challenges against leaders of other independent federal agencies, especially if the court becomes more conservative.” Another look at the implications of the ruling for multi-member agencies like the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission comes from Pamela King at Greenwire (subscription required). Leah Litman writes at Slate that “[t]he court’s decision leaves open the possibility that any distinction between agencies—including differences that do not meaningfully change the amount of presidential control over an agency—are enough to invalidate them.” Additional commentary comes from Alan Morrison at the ACS Expert Forum blog and Michael Dorf at Dorf on Law.

Briefly:

For The New York Times, Adam Liptak writes that pivotal votes in a series of recent high-profile decisions “underscored the larger truth about Chief Justice Roberts: 15 years into his tenure, he now wields a level of influence that has sent experts hunting for historical comparisons.”

Also for The New York Times, Hailey Fuchs reports that “Daniel Lewis Lee is scheduled to be executed in less than two weeks,” after “the Supreme Court cleared the way for the federal executions to proceed, rejecting arguments against the use of a single drug to carry out the sentence by lethal injection,” “but he has been unable to see his lawyers for three months because of the coronavirus pandemic.”

At Greenwire (subscription required), Niina Farah reports that the court on Monday “asked the Trump administration to weigh in on a battle over companies’ ability to seize state lands to build natural gas pipelines.”

At The New Yorker, Lincoln Caplan looks at the case of Texas death-row inmate Billy Wardlow, who is petitioning the Supreme Court to stay his execution for a murder committed when Wardlow was 18: Wardlow’s petition argues that “recent neuroscientific research” shows that “[i]t’s not possible to predict that a young person who committed a violent crime is likely to commit another,” so that a jury cannot make a valid finding of future dangerousness, as is required to sentence someone to death in Texas.

We rely on our readers to send us links for our round-up. If you have or know of a recent (published in the last two or three days) article, post, podcast or op-ed relating to the Supreme Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com. Thank you!

The post Wednesday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from Law https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/07/wednesday-round-up-531/ via http://www.rssmix.com/

#law #justice

0 notes

makotothedweeb · 5 years

Text

Pointless rant about being female, grayro, ace, and severely genophobic.

NOTE: I HAVE NOTHING AGAINST GRAYROS OR ACES (OR PEOPLE OF ANY GENDER), THIS IS JUST A LIST OF SHIT I’M FORCED TO PUT UP WITH ON A DAILY BASIS.

ANOTHER NOTE: Most of these are opinions-- controversial opinions-- or harsh facts. You may be offended.

I prefer girls, and I just say I’m a lesbian to avoid the confusion.

The truth: I’m someone who rarely has romantic attraction, and when I DO have it, it’s not strong. I, however, prefer girls when it comes to ROMANTIC relationships, because I trust my own gender more than the opposite. It’s been that way my whole life.

Heterosexual/romantic males think they’re entitled to my nonexistent heart and my vagina, when they’re NOT, and never will be.

Everyone, EVERYONE, including my close friends and family, thinks that I will (and/or HAVE to) fall in love with a male, get married, and have kids, just because I’m a female.

My opinion: I have genophobia. Severely. My worst fear is marrying and having sex with a male, and getting pregnant. I have two careers and a good plan for my future, and the LAST thing I need is to be stuck with a kid that’ll do nothing more but screw up my life.I want to save lives, not make them.

“HOW CAN YOU NOT WANT SEX?!?!? YOU CAN’T LIVE WITHOUT IT!1!1!1!111″

First off all, I need food, water, oxygen, blood, sunlight, shelter, and heat to survive. Sex is needed to reproduce, nothing more. You can die a virgin, like it or not.

Asexuality = unable to feel sexual attraction. If sex was something we’d die without, asexuality wouldn’t exist. And, by the way, ASEXUALITY EXISTS; LESS THAN 2% OF THE POPULATION IS ASEXUAL.

Genophobia exists. Genophobia = fear of sexual intercourse/relations.

Graysexuality exists. Graysexual = weak/rare sexual attraction.

You can have sex without love. It’s called rape, which is my biggest fear.

“HOW CAN YOU NOT WANT MARRIAGE/ROMANCE!??!!?!???”

Firstly, I don’t want to marry a male, a female... maybe. Probably not.

Aromantic people exist. I may not be aromantic, but I’m in between gray and aro. Aros don’t have romantic attraction.

Grayromantic people exist. Grayromantic = weak/rare romantic attraction.

Again, neither romance or marriage is needed to live. You can die unmarried.

Marriage is a cliche topic for me.

“You’re useless unless you reproduce.”

...So it’s okay to say that to a female but not to a male? I've already went through this bullshit with Google Plus, you know males reproduce too right?

“You’ll grow out of it.” / “it’s just a phase.”

My uncle has been married to his husband for 20-30 years, and no one tells him it’s “just a phase.”

People my age are supposed to feel sexual attraction. I don’t. My sexuality-- which is none of your business-- aside, I still have genophobia, AND an opinion.

“Every girl wants a man’s dick!1111!!!!11″

False. If that was a valid statement, homosexual/romantic and asexual/romantic people wouldn’t exist.

Heteronormativity is cliche, stupid, and wrong, whether you’re religious or not.

“Not all men are like that.”

I know.

Those words are an excuse to ignore what I’m saying. Whether all men are like that or not (and not all of them are, just most I’ve met), those men still exist and infuriate me.

“YOU’RE ONLY A TEENAGER YOU DON’T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THIS !!!1111!1111!!”

I know plenty.

I may not know everything about this topic, but I know my opinion, and the fact that most people will ignore me because of this, that’s all that matters.

how do I know “nothing” when people are telling me this bullshit all the time?

TL;DR: People are annoying pieces of shit that don’t care about my opinion. For people that can speak and read fluent English, people can’t understand the words, “I don’t want nor have attraction to males, let alone children.” Three words: asexuality, grayromanticism, genophobia.

[NOTE: Just thinking about sex, hetero or not, gives me an internal panic attack. And the feeling of having kids infuriates me.]

#irl #oof #rant #long rant #may be offensive #opinions #eh

0 notes

abeautyofgirls-blog · 6 years

Photo

New Post has been published on https://www.abeautyofgirls.com/5-fool-proof-signs-youve-found-a-good-partner/

5 Fool Proof Signs You've Found a Good Partner

“When you know, you know.”

Those words may seem corny to some of us, stupid to others, but to some it may just make perfect sense. Being a girl in this generation, there’s an unspoken pressure to be in a relationship. Why are men seen as “tied down” when they’re in relationships, but when women are single, they think they can’t lock down a man so there must be something wrong with them? Ladies, snap out of it.

First things first, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with being single. In fact, every girl should experience a majority of her young life alone. No, not a loner who doesn’t have any friends. We’re talking free of romantic commitment. A lot of beautiful things can come from being single, including building strong bonds with your friends, making selfish decisions, and really understanding what you want in a partner. You can still date, and flirt, and enjoy yourself, but don’t tie yourself down to just anyone.

That is the key takeaway from this. Wait until you’ve found a good one. But how do you know if they’re a good one? There seems to be a lot of contradicting opinions out there on what makes a strong relationship. You’re constantly receiving different pieces of advice from your friends, your family, strangers on the internet, etc. How do you know if those red flags are real warning signs or if it’s you just “being picky”?

The best advice? Be damn picky!

No one can tell you who to date, who makes you happy, and what to do in a relationship. But these are five fool proof ways to tell if you found a good one.

Are they the one? That’s up to you. But be picky until you can check off these boxes. Don’t settle for less because life is too short and your time is too valuable to be wasted in unhappy relationships.

1. You feel confident in your own skin

Nothing is more important than your confidence. Now, it’s rare that anyone is super comfortable in a relationship right off the bat. However, you’ll know rather quickly if they make you feel good about yourself or not. You may not be into super romantic gestures or corny texts throughout the day, but every girl deserves to feel beautiful. It’s damn hard to feel confident all the time, especially when it’s just one of those days where you feel ugly and bloated and wonder how anyone could look at you and find you attractive.

What you’ll come to learn is how appreciative you are to have found someone that says ,”hey, you’re cute” when you haven’t showered for three days because you’re binge watching Criminal Minds. Or someone that says “you’re beautiful regardless” when you say you feel chubby and need to go to the gym. If the person you’re with doesn’t make you feel confident enough to walk around with your bra on, wearing baggy sweats, and hair full of dry shampoo… they don’t deserve you.

2. They aren’t afraid to talk about the future with you

By the future, i’m not just referring to getting married and having lots of cute babies. It all depends what stage in your life you are at, so this will be different for everyone. What remains the same is they aren’t afraid to commit to you. They talk about “what ifs”. They don’t become socially awkward when you make a comment about what a good parent they would make or avoid talking about meeting the family for the first time. They don’t change subjects when you talk about an event coming up next year that you want to go to together, or hide you from their friends.

Regardless of the extremity of the conversations, it shows commitment. It shows that they aren’t in this just for kicks. What they see with you now is real enough to talk about a potential future. If you’re with someone who refuses to talk about where they see your relationship in 6 months, a year, 5 years, they’re probably not ready to be in a serious relationship. If you want those conversations to be made, don’t wait for the wrong person to finally come around, and don’t force them to be ready when they’re not. The right one for you will be on the same page and you’ll know it.

3. The thought of cheating on them makes you sick

Some people may find this extreme, but it’s important. It’s tough living in today’s society being so wrapped up in idolizing celebrities with unrealistic lifestyles and being immersed in pop culture that thrives on vulgarity and shock factor. Why has it become “out of style” for guys to remain faithful to their girlfriends? Infidelity has become something we’re accustomed to and it’s absolutely horrible.

That being said, temptation is out there. Not just for one sex, but for any normal human being. You’re not in the wrong for finding other people attractive, you’re not a horrible person for accepting a drink from a nice guy at a bar, and you’re not insane for having a weird little crush on your boss when you’re already in a happy relationship. What you’ll find to be the undeniable factor that you’ve found the right one, is the thought of acting on these impulses and giving into a second of satisfaction physically seems impossible. Your mind changes when you’ve found someone that potentially hurting completely replaces any sort of temptation you may have acted on at a different point in your life.

When you find someone who you can’t hurt, then you know they’re a good one.

4. Your fights are few and civil

These days you’ll hear people advocating that fighting all the time is normal because you love each other or you’ll see someone trying to argue that nasty fights are a sign of a passionate relationship. Of course, no relationship is going to be flowers and rainbows all the time and it’s very important to be able to overcome hard times with your S.O. But please stop and take a good hard look at what you’re fighting about. If you have to justify the validity of your relationship with “passion” because you fight so much, get out now.

You should be with someone who doesn’t start an argument with you every day over a like on Instagram, or someone who boils your blood so much you can’t express what you’re feeling without getting into a screaming match. A fight every once in a while is okay, some even say healthy. But you shouldn’t be fighting often, and when you do, they should be civil. You shouldn’t be forced to tears from hurtful comments, or dealing with someone who damages your belongings when they’re mad, or god forbid someone who gets physical with you.

No relationship is perfect and there will be disagreements, but anyone who says fighting all the time is healthy, hasn’t found the right person for them.

5. Your values align

In the end and after all the glitz and glam, a good relationship starts with aligning values. Going along with some of the same ideas as point number 4, you and your partner are allowed to disagree on things. Whether that be as simple as how cold you want the AC when you sleep or as important as your religious backgrounds, all these things should be discussed but shouldn’t be deciding factors in your relationship. What should be most important are your morals and your values.

Do they look at the world in the same way as you do? What kind of household do they want to raise their kids in? What are their beliefs on the things in life that are most important to you?

These are the questions you should be asking. In the end, being with someone who sleeps with the heat on may seem like something out of a nightmare… but if that person’s values align with yours and you’re morally on the same page, you can work through the small stuff. Your right person will align with you, and you’ll be thankful that you found them.

قالب وردپرس

0 notes