I'm looking for things like art progression memes and similar where people show how their art has "leveled up" over time. I'm hoping this will help to dispel the myth of natural inborn talent, so, I'm especially interested in stuff from when you were just starting vs where you are now (But even if you don't have anything from that far back, it's all good!)
If you have an example on your own blog that you'd like to share, please submit the link either via [submit] or [ask box]; I'll reblog it from you directly.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
Writing Complex Dissociation: Which Disorder Does (/Should) My Character Have?
I want to say first and foremost that not all dissociative disorders inherently make someone a system. Not even dissociative tendencies. You can have complex PTSD, for example, and dissociate a lot, and not be a system. In the same way you can have a dissociative disorder and not be a system -- the only subtype of OSDD that implies systemhood is OSDD-1; types 2, 3, and 4 don't.
Dissociation on its own is a symptom of a lot of things, and we all experience mild forms of it daily throughout our lives (ex: sleep/wake transition stage, getting lost in thought). It is the structural elements, interference in day-to-day life, and the complexity of said dissociation that inform whether 1) someone's dissociation is disabling, and 2) whether that disability is related to systemhood. This post is going to be centering writing system characters in particular.
DID, P-DID, and OSDD-1 are all complex disorders that are all too often simplified and demonized in stories meant to "include" us. Taking the first step into doing proper research is already miles above what most people do, and I and so many others appreciate that!
And I'm glad you're starting here, with what you're going to be writing in particular.
That said: even if you don't want to outright say in direct words what your dissociative character has, and would rather show it subtextually, it'd be good to have an idea so you have a framework to build off of, and so you have a consistent, well-established facet of your OC's identity.
DID, OSDD, P-DID - What's the Difference?
Good question! And it's important to note before anything else that the diagnostic criteria for something like DID versus, say, OSDD-1, will vary in some ways depending on where you live! In one country, what is considered OSDD might be read as DID if the exact same person is seen somewhere else!
Systems and dissociative disorders ARE observed globally. This is not a "Western phenomenon" or "something US Americans made up" -- DID has been observed as far south or east as South Africa, Australia, Japan. Population ratios between those with DID and without it are also very consistent in countries that have performed that research!
(It is very much a worldwide thing, and very much an intersectional thing. We are not all Cis White Man From Boston. Just doesn't work that way!)
And on top of that, covert dissociative disorders can be incredibly hard to diagnose due to how well they can slip under the radar or mask as other things. Standalone PTSD, personality disorders, that sort of thing -- the lines can be very blurry, and what you're seen as to a professional can vary from PTSD to DID to OSDD depending on how you present that day. So cases aren't often clear-cut, especially not from an outside point of view!
By no means am I making a comprehensive post here, but it's good to have a baseline idea for the differences so that you can do more applicable research moving forward. This is generally what those differences compose of:
[Long post (VERY long post) under the cut!]
Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID)
– “Disruption of identity characterized by two or more distinct personality states, which may be described in some cultures as an experience of possession (...)” and “marked discontinuity in sense of self and sense of agency, accompanied by related alterations in affect, behavior, consciousness, memory, perception, cognition, and/or sensory-motor functioning.”
"Two or more": keep that in mind! There is a minimum number of two alters a system can have (host included, the host is also an alter), but no maximum. This is due to how individual each DID experience can be! Someone can have exactly two alters in their system, while others can have 100+. (These experiences are known as polyfragmented DID. This type of DID is developed under very specific circumstances, highly complex, and highly under-researched, to the point where I'm only not going over it longer because I feel as if it warrants its own post.)
The average reported system count is around 8-13. If you need a baseline, go off of that!
Marked discontinuity in "sense of self and agency" can be a lot of different things; affect and motor functioning refers to tone, cadence, the way you speak and move and hold yourself, cognition/perception/memory refers to amnesiac barriers, outlook, morals, likes and dislikes -- everything down to the way you think can and will differ.
People with DID often feel indecisive, or inconsistent, and don't understand quite why until it's revealed (if ever). You can have one opinion one day and the complete opposite the next because of conflicting interests in alters. You may have to explain why your feelings and views contradict so frequently without consciously remembering that conflict happening.
It's also noted that changes in behavior may be noticed by others, but not always. And if they do, it rarely is thought to be DID -- my sibling, for example, while I was still in high school, would notice blatant switches and assume I was just having a "weird day" or I was "stressed". They noticed the consistency in behavioral changes, but thought nothing of it because I'd always been like that. EXTREMELY subtle symptom presentation is the norm.
– “Recurrent gaps in the recall of everyday events, important personal information, and/or traumatic events that are inconsistent with ordinary forgetting.”
Day-to-day life, important events, personal details, years and years of childhood and later, will just be gone. It's not there. Inaccessible. You might not even notice it's missing, either.
Due to the nature of dissociative disorders being dissociative, these gaps are very good at camouflaging themselves. You aren't paying attention to these things like your peers are, so you don't pick up on warning signs right away. And it takes even longer to notice patterns.
This can also look like having the same realization about the same thing multiple times. And it feeling new, and world changing, Every Time. It can feel like you're going in circles indefinitely with everything you do.
– “The symptoms cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.”
It's A Disability If It Disables You Basically. Again, some level of dissociation is normal to experience, it is the severity that is the problem. Like how daydreaming itself is fine, but could become maladaptive and disrupting in daily life.
– “The disturbance is not a normal part of a broadly accepted cultural or religious practice. Note: In children, the symptoms are not better explained by imaginary playmates or other fantasy play.”
This is why tulpamancy is not and should not be lumped in with dissociative disorders. It is a religion-specific practice, and something only a Tibetan Buddhist can speak on, which I am not, so I can't. What I will say: the implications you might see from people that tulpamancy is in any way comparable to a trauma-centric dissociative disorder are both ableist (implying OSDDID is a "practice" or something somebody can decide to "do") and extremely culturally insensitive (there is nothing disordered about Buddhist practices).
On topic again:
(Additionally: the idea of "tulpas" the way most Westerners practice it when divorced from the religion is a skewed interpretation of something only lightly "inspired" by Tibetan Buddhism. It is a very similar situation to how white people will talk about the "seven chakras" when that is nothing at all close to what chakras are. Not only is it appropriation, people are also defining it incorrectly! I plan on compiling my own post about misinformation related to these things once I have enough applied knowledge to be able to do that.)
(Update (September 1, 2025): Tibetan Buddhism in itself is NOT a closed religion! It is open for people to practice! I wasn't aware of this and have corrected it! That said, practices are still related to that sect of Buddhism, and the appropriation I was referring to was when people say they're practicing tulpamancy separate from Buddhism and divorced from the context, which is literally when appropriation happens. And which I see people doing all the time, specifically IN system spaces, trying to equate things that cannot be equated. THIS is what I was referencing, people that are not Buddhist and say they are not Buddhist trying to redefine what Buddhism is.)
(The religion is open but that does not mean its practices shouldn't be handled with respect. That is what I meant by "taking inspiration," when people that otherwise have no interest in the faith are only ever involved for one thing they think Looks Cool. That Sucks. And, STILL, a cultural practice of religious significance is still not the same as a complex trauma response.)
If the experiences line up with cultural or religious practice and are not disabling to the person, it is not OSDDID because it did not form the same way. If a child is engaging in escapism via fantasy play and said play is controllable by the child, it is not OSDDID because the motions are voluntary.
These experiences are all still real! And deserve respect! But they cannot be categorized the same -- like how generalized epilepsy and psychogenic non-epileptic seizures present similarly in some ways but aren't the same thing, or how a fainting spell might look like a seizure but isn't a seizure. It'd do a disservice to both to lump them in with one another, if that makes sense!
– “The symptoms are not attributable to the physiological effects of a substance (e.g., blackouts or chaotic behavior during alcohol intoxication) or other medical condition (e.g., complex partial seizures) (American Psychiatric Association, 2022).”
Speaks for itself but I'm Including It Anyway.
— All criteria backed by the DSM-5. All quoted text brought from the linked organization (DID Research) and goes into further detail than I have, if that's something you're interested in. (And you should be! Don't take my word alone for it, look deeper!)
———
All other types (OSDD, P-DID) are disorders that mostly fall under this criteria, but diverge in some significant way. This does NOT make anyone with these disorders "less real", it only means they have a different experience with structural dissociation -- and structural dissociation is highly individual, dependent on the person and their situation (so you'll be hard pressed to find two systems that experience their disorder the exact same way).
This is just something that happens. Very confusing disorder to have!
———
Partial Dissociative Identity Disorder (P-DID)
– All criteria for DID diagnosis is met, EXCEPT:
– “(...) the person still experiences a disruption of their identity, like in DID, but there is a ‘dominant’ personality which is usually at the front. Intrusions from other parts are infrequent and irregular, perhaps only happening during a particularly distressing or emotional experience.” — “What are the Dissociative Disorders?”, International Society for the Study of Trauma and Dissociation
By "intrusions", people mean switching, or executive control. Different terms that mean the same thing.
In OSDDID cases outside of P-DID, alters will have the ability to take executive control of the body -- this is something that, most of the time, is not present in P-DID. I've seen it described by a P-DID system through the roommates allegory: that collective is there in the building, and they all share the space, but only one of them answers the door.
This is usually the case, but a P-DID system can break out of that -- switching, etc. can still happen in some P-DID systems, particularly when under severe distress.
P-DID, as said by the International Society for the Study of Trauma and Dissociation, is most commonly recognized and diagnosed outside of North America. P-DID is also the least discussed from what I've seen, which may or may not be correlated in some way. (Again, how these things are labeled and understood will vary from place to place and group to group! It's important to get multiple perspectives on a given subject for that reason.)
———
“Other specified dissociative disorder (OSDD) is a dissociative disorder that serves as a catch-all category for symptom clusters that do not fit neatly within another dissociative disorder diagnosis.” — “DID Versus OSDD-1”, DID Research
Otherwise Specified Dissociative Disorder, Type 1A (OSDD-1A)
– All criteria for DID diagnosis is met, EXCEPT:
– Alters are not distinct enough for the circumstances to be treated the same as DID. For this reason, this particular type of system will especially go under the radar, often misdiagnosed as PTSD or BPD, or not read as a disorder at all.
Otherwise Specified Dissociative Disorder, Type 1B (OSDD-1B)
– All criteria for DID diagnosis is met, EXCEPT:
– Inter-identity amnesia is not present. Emotional amnesia is more common than complete blackouts; I hear the term "greyout" used quite often in reference to this kind of amnesia.
NOTABLY: I distinguish between the two here because they used to be more heavily utilized in the diagnostic process, but aren't anymore. It is NOW mostly refered to as OSDD-1 and that is IT, but I wanted to include this information anyway because of how often it circulates. The labels may be outdated in some places, but they will come up in research so it's handy to at least know what they mean.
AND ANOTHER THING TO ADD: because of this some systems with OSDD have been diagnosed under the old criteria and may self-identity as having 1A or 1B instead of OSDD-1 on its own. It is their right to self-label how they feel fits their circumstances. Please do not go around telling people not to call their disorder the name they've been using for forever. It's not like the case of autism versus "Asperger's" it is NOTHING like that the context is SO different PLEASE!!
Back on topic, and As Said Above. Both of these OSDD types above fall under type 1. Types 2, 3, and 4 are also considered OSDD, but are not system disorders.
Presentation of a dissociative disorder, overt and covert, is also nearly never this cut-and-dry. [For all intents and purposes you CAN be very straightforward as you build your character at first, but the disorder is complex and messy, so if somebody doesn't seem to fit cleanly into one type as you write at first, that's alright!]
What About UDD?
Unspecified dissociative disorder (UDD), from my understanding, is used in the way that DDNOS (dissociative disorder not otherwise specified) used to be. A medical note of UDD is there to clarify that a given patient has a dissociative disorder, but it is not yet clear which category they fall into.
UDD encompasses any disordered experiences outside of specific known conditions, and many (but not all) people with a UDD diagnosis are given more specific names for their condition later -- someone could have P-DID and have UDD in their medical record because they haven't got the chance to be fully evaluated yet, for example!
“This diagnosis, along with Other Specified Dissociative Disorder, act as a "residual category for dissociative symptoms which do not fit within a more specific category" and either the clinician decides not to specify the reason that the criteria for other Dissociative Disorders aren't met, or not information information exists to make a more specific diagnosis.”
“If a reason can be specified, e.g., dissociative trance, then Other Specified Dissociative Disorder should be diagnosed instead.” — “Unspecified Dissociative Disorders”, Trauma Dissociation
The ICD approaches unspecified dissociative disorder the same way the DSM does: “it cannot be diagnosed when a more specific diagnosis is appropriate.”
If your character is going to have experiences that would fall into the unspecified category, then go right ahead! Because people do have experiences that may fall outside of a typical presentation for a dissociative disorder, but still have a dissociative disorder. UDD just encompasses all of those cases, so be very specific with what kind of experiences you're going to be writing so it isn't unrealistic or disrespectful. Make sure you don't write something contradictory without intent!
Writing Complex Dissociation: Narrow Down What Type, Then Do Specific Research
Overall: I ask that you be very mindful of exactly what condition you're writing and why. (And where -- remember, regional differences can impact labels, perception, treatment, everything!) But if your character's story is a more complicated one, that's perfectly fine, I'd even say it's more realistic! The nature of complex dissociation is that it isn't clean and clear-cut and easy to define!
Nothing is as blatant or linear as how it looks on paper. I recommend before starting any specific writing, of course, to pinpoint which type of structural dissociation you're going to be modeling off of and what you want to achieve by doing that; we can get into all the gritty details once that foundation is established!
And again, this is a GENERAL post! I did not go NEARLY as in-depth as I could have and encourage everyone to do their own research (with discretion)!
———
References:
– DID Research.
– International Society for the Study of Trauma and Dissociation.
No one asked for this but I have a LOT of feelings about archery. I see so many mistakes when people draw archers that look awkward or just straight up don't make sense, even in like, really technically good professional art. So, I put together a guide!
Obligatory disclaimer: I'm an amateur artist, and this guide isn't to teach you archery! It only touches on some aspects of archery technique, and doesn't even go into other important stuff (like arrow rests, or over the top impossible fantasy bow designs). I just wanted to highlight what I consider when I draw an archer!
FYI, this is part of my March Patreon pack! I'll be doing one of these every month or two, and I'll always make them publicly available. If you'd like to support me or help me decide what my next topic will be, check out my Patreon!
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
I just saw an anon come into a gif-maker’s ask box and start with the phrase: “I’m trying not to spam your inbox with reblogs, but” and then go on to say how much they love the gifs.
But I’m still stuck on that opening phrase because…what? I am so confused by how people view interactions on tumblr & AO3 these days. Let me make it very clear for anyone who is unsure:
CREATORS WANT YOU TO INTERACT WITH THEIR WORK.
The limit does not exist on how many of their works you can interact with in a certain period.
If you like every fic they’ve ever written? Then feel free to give them all kudos and even leave a comment on every single one if you feel inclined! If you’re going through someone’s blog and you vibe with every post, like/reblog to your heart’s content!
As long as you’re not expecting something back from them or adding a ton of irrelevant comments, it’s not spam! It’s what this is all about!! I’m not even much of a creator and I still feel a huge sense of pride when I see a ton of notifications in a row from a person, as it clearly shows they thought my blog was worth spending time on.
And if for some reason a creator is annoyed by this (unlikely), they can manage their own experience (turn off notifs, not look at their notes, delete the fic, etc) -- so don’t deprive the majority of creators because of some imagined annoyed person. Fandom is a collaborative effort and we all must participate!
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
☽ Memory becomes absolute garbage. Like “why am I in the kitchen?” garbage. “What was I saying?” garbage. Their brain is running on buffering screens and regret.
☽ Fine motor skills? Ha. They’re dropping everything. Pens. Phones. Entire moral compass. They’re basically a malfunctioning claw machine.
☽ Hallucinations creep in. That jacket on the chair? Suddenly a person. That noise? Definitely doom. Everything becomes mildly haunted.
☽ Time gets weird. Five minutes feel like a year. A full hour disappears and they swear they blinked wrong.
☽ Irritation skyrockets. They get mad at chairs. At air. At gravity. At the audacity of other humans continuing to exist.
☽ Their voice sounds weird. Slow, scratchy, like they swallowed sand.
☽ They walk like a drunk baby giraffe. Walls suddenly jump closer. Floors rise unexpectedly. Coordination said: “I’m out.”
☽ Zoning out becomes a hobby. They stare at random objects like they’re trying to understand quantum mechanics.
☽ Vision blurs in and out. Like someone smeared Vaseline over their eyeballs out of spite.
☽ Their body just hurts. Not a dramatic pain, just the “why does my skeleton feel like it’s buzzing?” pain.
☽ Food cravings go feral. They’d fight someone for a stale cookie.
☽ Terrible choices. They will absolutely say “I’m fine” while making decisions that end in disaster.
☽ Random emotional implosions. Crying because their sock feels wrong? Yes.
☽ Cold hands. Cold feet. Cold heart. (Okay maybe not the last one, but it feels like it.)
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
The word lesbian comes from the Greek island of Lesbos, where the poet Sappho lived around 630–570 BCE. Sappho wrote lyric poetry about love, beauty, and relationships between women. Because of her work and connection to Lesbos, the term "lesbian" eventually became associated with women who are attracted to other women.
Sappho's poetry is some of the earliest surviving writing that expresses romantic and emotional feelings between women. Most of her work has been lost, but fragments survive through later writers and historians.
Some of the most important sources include:
Fragments of Sappho's poetry quoted by Longinus in On the Sublime (1st century CE)
References to Sappho in Ovid's Heroides (c. 15 BCE)
Discussions of her work by Athenaeus in Deipnosophistae (3rd century CE)
Because so few ancient texts about relationships between women survive, Sappho's poetry is especially important to lesbian history.
Lesbians in written texts throughout history
Ancient Greece (c. 630–570 BCE) - Sappho writes poems celebrating love and desire between women.
Roman Period (1st–2nd Century CE) - Writers such as Ovid and Martial mention relationships between women, although they often describe them negatively or as unusual.
Medieval Europe (10th–12th Centuries) - Letters between women, especially in convents, show deep emotional bonds sometimes described as "romantic friendships (The correspondence between Benedictine abbess).
1778 – The Ladies of Llangollen - Eleanor Butler and Sarah Ponsonby left Ireland and settled together in Wales. They lived openly as companions for over 50 years and became well known throughout Britain.
Early 19th Century – Anne Lister (1791–1840) was an English landowner, diarist, and traveler from Yorkshire. She kept extensive diaries, writing over four million words, partly in a secret code. In these diaries, she recorded her romantic and sexual relationships with women, making them one of the most important historical sources on lesbian life. In 1834, Anne Lister and Ann Walker exchanged vows and took communion together at a church in York, an event many historians consider to be an early form of same-sex marriage. Because of her detailed writings and her openness about loving women, Anne Lister is often referred to as "the first modern lesbian."
19th Century – Boston Marriages
Some women chose to live together in long-term partnerships without marrying men. These relationships were often socially accepted, especially among educated and financially independent women.
The 20th Century
The 1900s brought major changes for lesbian communities.
In the 1920s, cities such as Paris, Berlin, and New York hosted LGBTQ+ social scenes. Berlin's Eldorado club became one of the best-known spaces where lesbians could meet openly before the Nazi regime shut down many queer venues.
During the 1950s, many LGBTQ+ people faced discrimination during the Lavender Scare in the United States. In response, lesbians began organizing for their rights. In 1955, the Daughters of Bilitis became the first lesbian civil rights organization in the U.S. and published The Ladder, one of the first lesbian magazines.
The 1969 Stonewall Riots helped launch the modern LGBTQ+ rights movement. Lesbians played important roles in organizing protests, Pride events, and political campaigns.
During the 1970s, writers such as Audre Lorde and Adrienne Rich connected lesbian rights with feminism and broader struggles for equality.
The AIDS Crisis and Lesbian Activism
During the AIDS crisis of the 1980s and early 1990s, many lesbians became caregivers, activists, and organizers. They volunteered in hospitals, helped people access healthcare, organized blood drives, and supported those abandoned by families or institutions.
Lesbians were also active in groups such as ACT UP and later the Lesbian Avengers, helping push governments and medical organizations to respond more effectively to the epidemic.
Many historians point to this period as one reason why the "L" is often placed first in the LGBTQ+ acronym today. It recognizes the important contributions lesbians made to the broader queer rights movement.
Representation in Media
For much of the 20th century, lesbian characters were often portrayed as tragic, dangerous, or destined for unhappy endings. This contributed to stereotypes and the "Bury Your Gays" trope, where queer characters were frequently killed off or denied happy relationships.
Examples of older portrayals include:
The Children's Hour (1961) - quite homophobic, ending in "bury your gays" theme but one of the first movies openly addressing homosexuality on a larger scale. specifically significant since it starred Audrey Hepburn and Shirly MacLaine.
More recent media has offered a wider range of stories and characters:
The L Word (2004–2009; rebooted in 2019)
Orange Is the New Black (2013–2019)
Portrait of a Lady on Fire (2019)
Gentleman Jack (2019–2022)
Symbols
Several symbols have become associated with lesbian identity:
Labrys – A double-headed axe adopted by some lesbian and feminist groups in the 1970s.
Black Triangle – Reclaimed from the symbol used by the Nazis to identify women considered "asocial," including some lesbians.
Lesbian Pride Flag – The most widely used modern version is the orange, white, and pink striped flag introduced in 2018.
Lesbian history is often less visible than other parts of LGBTQ+ history because many women's relationships were ignored, hidden, or not recorded. Learning about figures such as Sappho, Eleanor Butler and Sarah Ponsonby, Audre Lorde, and Adrienne Rich helps show that lesbian communities have existed throughout history and have played an important role in literature, culture, activism, and social change.
Other honorary mentions:
Sappho, Fragments
Ovid, Heroides
Lillian Faderman, Odd Girls and Twilight Lovers (1991)
Bonnie Zimmerman (ed.), Encyclopedia of Lesbian Histories and Cultures (2000)
Martha Vicinus, Intimate Friends: Women Who Loved Women, 1778–1928 (2004)
